EAT Victimisation Discrimination: Whistleblowing – VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Detriment – VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Dismissal – UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissal – Although the Employment Tribunal found that the Claimant made a protected disclosure in good faith, it found:
(i) That many of the alleged detriments were not established as a matter of fact; and/or
(ii) That the Respondent was not vicariously liable for conduct of its employees in response to the protected disclosure: Fecitt v NHS Manchester [2012] IRLR 64; and in any event
(iii) That none of the Respondent’s treatment of him thereafter was on the grounds of or by reason of the disclosure, and was for properly separable and genuinely different reasons. For example, in relation to the principal detriment relied on (the disclosure of his statement to another employee who was to be disciplined on the basis of it) the Employment Tribunal found that this was done because the Respondent’s long-standing and well established disciplinary policy and practice required the witness statement relied on to support the allegation of misconduct to be disclosed to the employee facing misconduct charges; and there was nothing to alert the Respondent to any adverse reaction or threats by the disciplined employee on such disclosure.
These were all findings and conclusions amply supported by the evidence and not arguably in error of law.
Simler J
[2015] UKEAT 0394 – 14 – 1203
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – NHS Manchester v Fecitt and Others CA 25-Oct-2011
The appellant challenged reversal by the EAT of a finding that it had not unlawfully victimised the respondents for the making of a protected disclosure. The claimant had reported a co-worker exaggerating his qualifications. After repeated . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.546506
