VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Whistleblowing
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Perversity
The Claimant was a worker employed by the Respondent on a temporary assignment. On 14 March 2017, the Respondent terminated the assignment with immediate effect. There had been a meeting the previous day between the Claimant and one of the Respondent’s managers. The Claimant had made several complaints at the meeting. He contended that they amounted to protected disclosures under Part IVA of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and that the Respondent’s subsequent actions amounted to unlawful detriments on the grounds of his having made those disclosures. The Employment Tribunal dismissed the Claimant’s claim, finding that no qualifying disclosures had been made at the meeting and, in the alternative, on the basis of causation. On appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal and held that:
The Employment Tribunal had not made perverse findings of fact regarding what the Claimant had disclosed to the Respondent at the meeting on 13 March 2017.
On the Employment Tribunal’s factual findings about what the Claimant disclosed in the meeting, there was no material error of law in its conclusion that the matters raised did not amount to qualifying disclosures attracting statutory protection.
The Employment Tribunal had erred in law in its approach to causation. Having found that the Respondent’s actions in subjecting the Claimant to the detriments complained of had been motivated in part by the Claimant’s attitude and behaviour during the meeting, it had failed to address the issue of whether that behaviour was separable from the making of any disclosures. However, given the Employment Tribunal’s finding that the complaints that it had found were made did not amount to qualifying disclosures, any such error was not material to the outcome.
Citations:
[2020] UKEAT 0133 – 19 – 1303
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.649255
