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.
These two cases are about the same legal point. The ERA provides for two different causes of action for dismissal (s103A) and detriment (s47B). A s.47B detriment claim cannot be used when the detriment in question amounts to a dismissal as there is a different cause of action for dismissal claims. Only an employee can be dismissed so a worker who loses their job needs to bring a s47B detriment claim. However, since Osipov, employees have been able to bring a s.47B detriment claim for the decision to dismiss taken by a co-worker, in addition to (or instead of) a s.103A dismissal claim.
Mr Durey, a student paramedic, raised concerns about the reduction of students’ placement hours. He argued that he was victimised as a result and brought a detriment claim under Section47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA). He did not have any financial loss and only claimed injury to feelings.
The High Court has today handed down judgment and awarded whistleblower Amjad Rihan $10.8 m in damages against his former employer, Ernst and Young. Protect Chief Executive, Liz Gardiner said: “We’re pleased to see this award to Amjad Rihan, who courageously blew the whistle on serious financial irregularities and who suffered career-long losses as a … Read more
The Supreme Court has ruled a Royal Mail employee was unfairly dismissed for blowing the whistle, not for the alleged poor performance – based on false information – that the company’s HR department suggested was the reason for her dismissal. The landmark judgment extends the scope of whistleblower protection and suggests that employers will need … Read more
The Supreme Court has handed down a judgment today (October 16) which confirms judges are protected under whistleblowing provisions under the Employment Rights Act 1996, following a case brought by District Judge Claire Gilham. District Judge, Claire Gilham, raised concerns in 2013 about the stresses and dangers faced by those working in the courts and … Read more
An interesting recent case at the Employment Tribunal (Bilsbrough v Berry Marketing Ltd) looked at victimising of a potential whistleblower. In this case, Mr Bilsbrough, a client service executive, had been researching how to blow the whistle to the Information Commissioner, and was suspended. A strict interpretation of the law might suggest he was not … Read more
District Judge Claire Gilham who blew the whistle on the stresses and dangers faced by those working in under-resourced courts, is to have her case against the Ministry of Justice heard at the Supreme Court between June 5-6. Protect, formerly Public Concern at Work, are intervening in the Supreme Court case and have instructed law … Read more
