The applicant had been employed for a short period. He was dismissed, and he claimed that this was because he had made a protected disclosure in complaining about the respondent’s health and safety practices. He had applied for interim relief. The respondent company had asked that the claim be treated as vexatious, and at the hearing the application had been dismissed, and costs of andpound;500 had been awarded. He appealed that decision, saying that the claim could not be said to be entirely without merit, and accordingly, the tribunal’s decision was based on an erroneous view of the law.
Held: The employee’s appeal succeeded. The ET had effectively decided the evidentiary issues against the applicant. The EAT was being asked whether any alleged disclosure was required to relate to a legal obligation arising out of the contract of employment. ‘It is obviously not sufficient under Section 43B that there should simply be a breach of contract but what has to be shown is first a breach of the employment contract as being a breach of a legal obligation under that contract. Secondly, there must be a reasonable belief that this has, is, or is likely to happen on the part of the worker. Thirdly, there must be a disclosure of that which is alleged to be the reason for dismissal. In other words, where it is a breach of the contract of employment, the worker is bound to make his case on the basis that the reason for dismissal is that he has complained that his employer has broken the contract of employment.’
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for Dismissal
Judges:
His Honour Judge J Altman
Citations:
EAT/1239/00, [2001] UKEAT 1239 – 00 – 2206, [2002] IRLR 109
Links:
Statutes:
Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 43B(b), Employment Rights Act 1996 129
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Parkins v Sodexho Ltd EAT 17-Jan-2001
. .
Cited by:
Distinguished – Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management Ltd v Geduld (Rev 1) EAT 6-Aug-2009
EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION: Protected disclosure
The claimant, who had less than one year’s continuous employment fell out with his fellow directors and equal shareholders. He was removed as a . .
Overruled by Statute – Chesterton Global Ltd (t/a Chestertons) and Another v Nurmohamed (Victimisation Discrimination: Whistleblowing) EAT 8-Apr-2015
chesteron_nurmohamedEAT201504
EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION
Whistleblowing
Protected disclosure
This appeal concerns the meaning of the words ‘in the public interest’ inserted into section 43B(1) of the Employment Rights . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.168260
