EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION: Whistleblowing
The issue raised on this appeal was whether the whistle blowing provisions contained in section 43A to section 43M of the Employment Rights Act by the Public Information Disclosure Act 1998 afford protection for disclosure that does not reveal any ‘wrongdoing’ or ‘failure’ by the employer or person for whom the employer is responsible?
The answer is ‘yes’ as it provides protection for disclosure that reveals a ‘wrong doing’ or ‘failure’ by any person.
A teacher read a report in a local newspaper from which she identified a suspect in a rape case as a student she had interviewed for a course run by her employer. She passed information about him to the police. She claimed that in consequence she was branded a trouble maker by her employer because her disclosures to the police had involved the employer in a criminal matter, and claimed that the disclosures were protected disclosures made in accordance with Section 43H. The ET dismissed her complaint on the ground that the disclosure of information revealed no wrongdoing on the part of the employer and was not ‘a qualifying disclosure’. Allowing the appeal, the Appeal Tribunal pointed out that there was no limitation whatsoever in the statute on the people or entities whose wrongdoings could be the subject of qualifying disclosures. A wrongdoer was simply identified as a ‘person’.
Judges:
Silber J
Citations:
[2008] UKEAT 0275 – 08 – 0710
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – BP Plc v Elstone and Another EAT 31-Mar-2010
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS
VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION: Protected disclosure
The central question in this appeal was whether an employee/worker who complained of suffering a detriment from his current . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.277157