Mr Nicol had raised concerns to HR consultants about his CEO’s managerial style . The CEO was informed that concerns had been raised about her but was not told about their substance. Shortly afterwards, Mr Nicol was dismissed. Mr Nicol lost his s.103A dismissal claim because the ET found that the decision-maker—the CEO—had not been aware of the substance of the protected disclosure.
Mr Nicol appealed on the grounds that as long as a protected disclosure had been made to his employer (the HR consultants), and the decision-maker (the CEO) knew that a disclosure had been made, then the decision-maker did not need to know the substance of the disclosure to be liable for the retaliation.
On appeal, the EAT upheld the ET’s decision. It held that employers must have at least some knowledge about the substance of the disclosure to be liable for unfair dismissal arising from it. Mere awareness that a concern had been raised is not sufficient to establish causation.