Protect – Speak up stop harm

Free, confidential whistleblowing advice
Call us on 020 3117 2520 or email us

Donate
Protect – Speak up stop harm
Donate

Free, confidential whistleblowing advice
Call us on 020 3117 2520 or email us

Talkin’ bout my generation – does your age impact your attitude to whistleblowing

On Tuesday 24 June we hosted a fantastic event with Lloyds Banking Group (LBG) to launch our latest research – Attitudes to Whistleblowing, exploring how views towards Speaking Up differ across the generations. 

With the world of work undergoing seismic shifts in recent years – from the acceleration of remote working to growing expectations around corporate ethics – we wanted to find out how today’s employees feel about whistleblowing and what this means for employers. Supported by LBG, we commission a You Gov survey* and held focus groups to probe workers of different ages on how they view whistleblowing and what employers could do to encourage them to speak up. 

Main findings 

  • Majority of staff are willing to speak up but younger workers are less likely to raise concerns compared to older generations. 
  • The majority (86%) of workers aged 55 and over and 80% of 45-54 year-olds said health and safety concerns would trigger reporting. The biggest area of concern for younger workers was addressing sexual harassment (67% for 18-24 year olds and 76% for 25-34 year olds). 
  • 70% of the 18–24-year-olds said their employer would manage things very well or fairly well but this decreased to just under 50% of the 55+ age group. 
  • Barriers to reporting wrongdoing varied between age groups, with millennials (35-44 year olds) concerned with mental health issues more than any other age group and 18-24 year olds most concerned about jeopardising others people’s jobs. ​ 

At our launch event we were joined by a panel of speakers who shared their expertise and experience  

They all gave their take on the research and what they felt employers needed to consider going forward. 

Daniil homed in on the fact the research had shown that younger people were more likely to raise concerns that impacted the individual – harassment, discrimination, etc… compared to older workers who logged fraud and health and safety as the most pressing issues. He aligned with the research findings regarding wanting to report issues anonymously and wanted reassurance that action would be taken if he raised a concern. Reflecting on the way employers roll out online training he made the point that his generation are digital-native and less likely to be engaged with standard AI-voiced training modules. His rallying call was for Speak Up teams to ensure they were making their training engaging and memorable. 

Tina reflected on her own experience of being a whistleblower and sadly, not having a great experience with her employer. Drawing on her work in the HR field she identified with the research that illustrated that staff will often start a new job with “baggage” they accumulated in previous roles that will impact their view and trust of Speaking Up. In a question from the floor about working with Trade Unions, Tina said it was crucial for all organisations to include unions in the development and review of whistleblowing policies, and to set them up as a reporting line, she said “if they know you’re advocating for them then they will be keener to get onboard”. Tina also shared her experiences of dealing with what she termed “toxic positivity” workplace cultures where people only talk about the good things, and any mentions of areas of concern or improvement are looked down upon. This, she said, was a dangerous path to tread as it puts staff in difficult positions when trying to raise an issue or call out problems. 

Peter said that it was hugely encouraging that the research found so many people confident to go to their line managers if they had something to raise. This, he felt, went against the conceptions that remote working culture was damaging in-person relationships. But he drew attention to the fact that while 70% of 18-24 year olds had said they were confident their employer would deal with whistleblowing concerns well – this still left 28% (more than a quarter) who did not. As the one generation as yet untainted by the world of work he felt this needed to be addressed. 

Drawing on his work identifying generational differences Peter said it is important to know what your staff aren’t telling you. He raised an example of Gen Z staff using Glassdoor to share issues about their employer – things they had never raised or told their line managers about previously. With such a digitally fluent generation, he suggested providing opportunities to share issues, concerns, thoughts in a safe internal online space could prevent these topics from escaping into the public realm. And while saying all this about Gen Z, as a member of Gen X himself he said he wanted all this too!  

You can download the report here.

We really hope this research sheds light on how values, work habits, and risk tolerance can shape whether and how different generations raise concerns. We also hope it offers insights for employers seeking to build trust and transparency across a multigenerational workforce. Ensuring you are appealing and addressing the needs of your whole workforce is essential and if you’re only just getting your head around managing Gen Z in the workplace, don’t get complacent – Generation Alpha are just around the corner… 

 

* YouGov survey  

All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc. Total sample size was 2121 adults, including 140 aged 18-24. Fieldwork was undertaken between 2nd – 3rd June 2025. The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all GB adults (aged 18+). 

All Blog Posts

Gen-Z less likely to blow the whistle at work compared to older colleagues

New research by the UK’s whistleblowing charity Protect shows that Gen-Z (those aged 18–24-year-olds) are less likely to blow the whistle to their employer compared to older generations. Across every area of potential wrongdoing – from health and safety to fraud and bullying – Gen Z were less likely to raise a concern with their employer compared to every other generation.  

A YouGov survey* commissioned by Protect to mark World Whistleblowers’ Day asked people what they would be likely to raise if they witnessed an incident in the workplace. 

  • Someone’s health or safety being put in danger came out as the biggest issue (77%), with 86% of those age 55 and over saying they would raise a concern, compared with only 56% of Gen Zs.  
  • The youngest workers (18–24-year-olds) put addressing sexual harassment as their top issue with two thirds of Gen Zs (67%) saying they would raise it if they witnessed it at work. This compares with  three quarters (76%) of Millennials (25-34 year olds).  
  • This trend was replicated across all areas of concern type with younger people (18–24-year-olds) saying they were less likely to raise issues when compared to their older colleagues. 

Gen Z put sexual and racial harassment as their top issues, confirming general assumptions that younger workers are less willing to tolerate such behaviour in a workplace. 

When asked whether people would ever post on social media about workplace issues only a small minority of Gen X and Boomers said they would consider this, compared to Gen Z and younger Millennials. 18-24 year olds were five times more likely to post on social media about some serious work issues than those aged 55 and over (5% compared to < 1%). Similarly, there was a stark difference between the generations when it came to blowing the whistle via the media where 13% of 18–24-year-olds said they were willing to approach journalists, compared to 1% for those aged 55+. 

Sybille Raphael, Legal Director at Protect, said:  

“Despite the perceptions that Gen Z are more vocal than other generations about bad behaviour in the workplace, our research shows that they are less likely to blow the whistle to their employer than their older colleagues. They are less clear about what to raise and how to raise to their employer and more willing to use social media or traditional media. 

“We’re starting to see a shift in what different generations value in work, and what they consider important for their employers and for themselves personally. Our research sees younger people more likely to call out issues relating to sexual harassment than fraud or corporate cover-ups. 

“The newest recruits in a workplace, the freshest pairs of eyes, are usually more likely to spot issues than those who have become accustomed to embedded behaviours. It is therefore especially important that employers communicate clearly on whistleblowing when on-boarding new staff and  regularly review their whistleblowing arrangements to build trust and confidence.” 

The research forms the basis for a new briefing for employers examining the differences in attitudes and experiences to whistleblowing across the generations.  

 

Notes to Editors:  

For more information, and to arrange an interview, please contact:   

YouGov survey*:
All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc. Total sample size was 2121 adults. Fieldwork was undertaken between 2nd – 3rd June 2025.  The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all GB adults (aged 18+).

Data tables

Question: (option to select all that apply)

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55+
Someone’s health or safety being put in danger 56% 70% 77% 80% 86%
Someone stealing or defrauding money from your employer, customer or service user 59% 64% 71% 75% 79%
If I believe someone is covering up wrongdoing 36% 51% 58% 58% 60%
The company breaking the law (for example does not have the right insurance) 43% 51% 56% 55% 59%
Actions that risk or actually damage the environment 39% 47% 48% 47% 46%
Breach of company policy 29% 35% 38% 40% 36%
Discriminatory behaviour 55% 66% 67% 67% 64%
Sexual harassment 67% 76% 77% 77% 78%
Racial harassment 62% 68% 70% 72% 71%
Bullying 60% 69% 72% 76% 80%

 

Question: Would you ever post on social media about workplace issues that you believe are of public interest?

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55+
I would post on social media about more trivial work issues 7% 6% 3% 2% 1%
I would post on social media about SOME serious work issues, but not all 15% 9% 5% 2% 3%
I would post on social media about all work issues, no matter how serious they were 4% 3% 2% 1% 1%
I would never post on social media about any work issue 61% 72% 81% 84% 90%
Don’t know 12% 10% 10% 11% 6%

 

Question: If you were to witness wrongdoing or malpractice in the workplace that affected others …Which, if any, of the following actions would you take? (option to select all that apply)

Actions 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55+
Leave and find a new job 8% 5% 6% 4% 3%
Follow my employer’s whistleblowing process 27% 36% 44% 42% 47%
Tell my manager/supervisor about it 61% 63% 63% 59% 59%
Tell someone else – friends, family etc 33% 26% 21% 22% 19%
Tell your union rep 21% 15% 13% 14% 22%
Post about it on social media 5% 3% 1% 1% 0%
Go to the press/media 13% 2% 2% 5% 1%
Other 3% 4% 2% 4% 3%
Don’t know 11% 8% 8% 9% 7%

 

 

 

Recent Posts

Employment Tribunal turns 60

a blurred out image showing informal judges on a panel

The 31st May 2025 marks sixty years of Employment Tribunals (ETs) coming into being. Previously called Industrial Tribunals, they were originally intended to provide “an easily accessible, speedy, informal and inexpensive procedure” for resolving employment disputes.[1] Set up to be used by litigants in person – people representing themselves without a lawyer – the reality is that the procedural and legal process is very confusing and challenging to understand for an unrepresented litigant, which is discussed in Struck Out, a 2012 book on employment tribunals:

“Tribunals are supposed to be accessible courts […] Yet many litigants find Tribunals closed and off-putting places. The language of the court is highly formal. The procedure of Tribunals is fixed. Parties address the court in a fixed order. Factual submissions are made before legal submissions. To be most effective in putting their case, even an unrepresented claimant will be expected to copy some of the mannerisms of an experienced barrister addressing a higher court.”

Now a cornerstone of the UK’s employment law system, they have changed beyond recognition over the last 60 years and the current systems are in need of an upgrade.

The Employment Tribunal is the final destination for whistleblowing cases – often a tortuous process that pits an individual whistleblower against the might of their employer’s legal team. Recent reports have shown that the UK employment tribunal backlog has hit record levels, with some warning the number is likely to rise further. Plus last year fees for Employment Tribunals were put back in the frame. So what does all this mean for whistleblowers?

Tribunal Backlog

According to recent analysis by the law firm Littler the backlog of open UK employment tribunal cases has risen by over a quarter (23 per cent) in just 12 months. The employment law firm looked at the latest HM Courts & Tribunals Service statistics and found the number of open cases reached 49,800 in December 2024, increasing from 39,000 the previous year. The analysis found there are currently approximately 450,000 people across single and multiple claims waiting for their cases to be resolved.

Under the government’s flagship worker rights’ legislation, currently going through parliament, employees will be entitled to “day one” protections against unfair dismissal and will have up  to six months to bring a claim to an employment tribunal, an increase from the three months at present. This extension is certainly welcomed as will give more flexibility for would-be whistleblowers to make their claim.  Missing from the extension of time limits is interim relief (IR) which is a reinstatement order that a whistleblower can request from the tribunal which means they either get their job back or, if this isn’t possible, they are paid their full wage for the length of the tribunal case.  The problem exists that IR can only be applied for 7 days after the whistleblower has been dismissed, which is an incredible short period of time.  We’d like to see this extended in line with general tribunal claims to 14 days.

The current long delays to Tribunals have significant implications for whistleblowers who are left in limbo while waiting for their case to be heard. While going to the Tribunal is often the result when the internal processes haven’t gone well, the drawn-out process is hugely stressful for claimants and the judge doesn’t have the remit to investigate the problems the whistleblower raised (often to the frustration of whistleblowers who are looking for “their day in court” to right the wrongs they had witnessed).

Slim chance of success

It’s well reported that only 3% of whistleblowing claims are “successful at hearing” but this doesn’t really tell the whole story. Analysis has shown that a third of all cases are settled through ACAS and a high percentage of claims settled through some means (including claims being withdrawn because of settlement with the employer). The 3% figure suggests this is all whistleblowing cases, but in reality the majority never get to the Tribunal as they are either settled or dropped along the way. But for anyone going through the Tribunal process seeking justice at this level is an incredibly stressful and intimidating experience.  Whistleblowers who settle their case may feel they cannot continue to raise the public interest concern at the heart of the case (e.g. the fraud, sexual harrassment etc.) due to confidentiality or non-disclosure agreements within the settlement agreement.  The law states that any clause in a contract is void if it aims to prevent an individual from raising their whistleblowing concerns (this can include disclosures to a regulator, MP or the press). Yet awareness of this is very low, YouGov and our own research has found less than half (48%) of adults were aware of a law that protects whistleblowers.  We would like to see every settlement include text that specifies the right to make public interest disclosure. Plus, independent legal advice- paid by the employer- to outline the limits of their confidentiality agreement and their ability to blow the whistle in the future.

Free or Fees – the impact on access to justice:

Tribunal fees were abolished in 2017 scrapping the £390 to £1,600 charge to lodge a claim. In January 2024 the Sunak Conservative government launched a consultation on bringing the fees back with a £55 issue fee that would be payable by the claimant on bringing a claim to the ET. The Law Society president Nick Emmerson said it could price out access for justice for those who need it most but with the change in government it seems that the proposals have been shelved for now.

The future of Employment Tribunals and whistleblowing claims

As Employment Tribunals mark this important milestone, it is crucial to modernize the system – making it more efficient, transparent, and user-friendly. For whistleblowing cases – the Tribunal is an indication of when things have gone wrong and the relations between employer and employee have irrevocably broken down. Effort and focus are best spent improving the law to provide real support and strong protections for those who speak up, before, during, and after they blow the whistle.

https://protect-advice.org.uk/legal-reform-campaign/

 

[1] Royal commission on Trade Unions and Employers’ Associations 1965-1968: Report, Cmnd 3623; (1968), para 578

All Blog Posts

Lords support for whistleblowing amendments

view of houses of parliament across the river thames

The Employment Rights Bill is continuing its journey through the House of Lords and our proposals to update the whistleblowing framework have formed a key part of the conversation. 

May has seen the bill reach Committee Stage in the House of Lords, giving all members of the Lords an opportunity to speak and debate amendments. We’ve worked with a wide range of peers from across all parties to amass support for our proposals to modernise whistleblowing protection. 

Former Minister Lord Wills put his name to three amendments. The first is to introduce a Duty to Investigate whistleblowing concerns, creating a requirement on employers to take “reasonable steps” to investigate whistleblowing concerns that are brought to them. As the debate continued late into the evening, Baroness Kramer presented Lord Wills’ amendments to the House: 

The second of the amendments is the Extension of Whistleblower Protections, which expands whistleblowing protections to the self-employed, job applicants, trade union negotiators and all those in the workforce who currently do not fit under the current narrow definition of “worker”. Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb outlined how this amendment would reduce potential harm to the public.

And the third amendment lowers the bar for automatic unfair dismissal from the current position of whistleblowing being the main or the principal reason for dismissal, to “one of the reasons”, alongside extending the time limits to Interim Relief for whistleblowing from 3 months to 6 months. Crossbench peer Lord Cromwell pledged his support for all three amendments.

These amendments have received support from across the House of Lords with the former Liberal Democrat Minister Baroness Kramer, Green Peer Jenny Jones, former Conservative Cabinet Minister Nicky Morgan and crossbench Peer Lord Cromwell all speaking in support of them.  

Previously the government ministers pushed back against adopting the amendments. However, they have also given us hope by not categorically ruling out adopting the measures over time. We’re looking to take the momentum we’ve gained from proposing these amendments, building upon the growth of support in the Commons, and will ask peers to table further amendments on these issues. 

In the Commons, Minister Justin Madders said that he had “begun to consider” adopting these amendments. As such, we hope that in Report Stage the government will accept these proposals and finally update our broken and outdated whistleblowing framework. 

However, with so many amendments to scrutinise the House of Lords is likely to take longer than planned to dissect the Bill which could delay it passing into law by anything from a day to a few weeks. While the government want it passed before Parliament’s summer recess, which begins on 22 July, the debates may continue into the autumn. 

All Blog Posts

Attitudes to Whistleblowing

attitudes to whistleblowing - from Gen Z to Baby Boomers

The makeup of the workforce is changing.

Every workforce is made up of workers from different generations: their attitudes and experiences will be different.

Does Gen Z view whistleblowing differently to Millennials, Generation X or Baby Boomers? Has the attitude of the Baby Boomer generation changed from when they started in the workplace? The lived experience of the different generations should shape the way whistleblowing arrangements are created and communicated to staff.

To celebrate World Whistleblowers’ Day 2025, we are proud to invite you to a Protect event – in partnership with and kindly hosted by Lloyds Banking Group – to launch new research examining these issues and to provide a path to best practice.

Speaking at the event will be; Daniil Belogubov, Internal Audit Apprentice at Lloyds Banking Group, Tina Russell, Professional Conduct & Ethics Lead, Rebecca Linford, Legal Officer at Protect, and Peter Humphreys, Global Business Executive.

  • Date: Tuesday 24th June 2025
  • Online event: Microsoft Teams
  • Time: 10:00-11:30am

Please use this link to register for virtual attendance:

Register here

All Blog Posts

Press statement: Protect responds to the publication of the BBC Workplace Culture Review

Responding to the publication of the BBC Workplace Culture Review

https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2025/bbc-publishes-independent-review-into-culture

Andrew Pepper-Parsons, Director of Policy at Protect, said: 

“We welcome this comprehensive review of workplace culture at the BBC and the proposed actions to improve whistleblowing systems.

Effective whistleblowing is essential in making sure staff can speak up with the confidence wrongdoing will be addressed.

As an industry that relies on freelancers and short-term contracts, protections are needed to ensure everyone feels safe and respected at work. It is concerning this review shows that junior employees, freelancers and those on short-term contracts are much less likely to speak up than permanent BBC staff due to their precarious employment status.

Sadly, it is far too common that employers shoot the messenger rather than support their staff when they speak up about wrongdoing. Last year more than two thirds of callers to our whistleblowing advice line faced victimisation or felt forced to resign after blowing the whistle.

Training is needed to make sure all staff understand how to raise whistleblowing concerns and that managers know what to do when staff come to them about an issue.

BBC staff and freelancers need clear and uncomplicated ways to raise concerns with the confidence they will not be penalised or mistreated for doing so.”

Notes to editors: 
For more information please contact:

Recent Posts

Job applicants outside the NHS can’t claim whistleblowing protection – over to Parliament to right this wrong. 

In a disappointing judgment, the Court of Appeal has said that job applicants are not protected if they blow the whistle, and in doing so has thrown the ball firmly back into Parliament’s court to decide who is, and who is not, a whistleblower. More positively, the Court restated the value of whistleblowing and noted the purpose of the law is “to protect the public interest by ensuring that information about wrongdoing, or threats to health and safety or the environment, could be disclosed”

This case is the latest in a long line of court actions brought by individuals who spoke up and found themselves unprotected (see history below). Whistleblowing law was passed back in 1998 having been rushed through Parliament as a private member’s bill with Government support. Arguments about who should and should not be protected were limited. And 25 years later, the workplace has changed. The “gig economy” has introduced many more insecure and precarious jobs, and there’s been a big rise in self-employment (some of it bogus).   

As a charity with 30 years’ expertise on whistleblowing, Protect intervenes in key appeal cases to bring public policy arguments before the courts. But we don’t think it should be up to individuals to bring claims to challenge and extend the law with all the stress and cost this places on them. It would be better if Parliament took the decision to extend whistleblowing protection in a consistent and fair manner. In Protect’s view, whistleblowing protection should cover anyone in a work-related context who might see harm and should be encouraged to speak up.

The current ruling may send a chilling message to would-be whistleblowers. The law will stand by you only in your current job – your future employer can turn you down, simply because you once had the courage to speak up. But worse, the law is inconsistent as anyone who applies for a job in the NHS can claim whistleblower protection. This was a good change, introduced in 2015 following Sir Robert Francis’ Freedom to Speak Up review to improve the culture of the NHS and better protect patient safety. But the law protects everyone who applies to the NHS, including those in admin, finance or premises roles – some far removed from patients. Is it fair that some jobs are better protected than others? 

In our submissions, we drew attention to a number of cases that have come to us through our Advice Line where whistleblowers have been effectively “blacklisted” and unable to work in their chosen profession again. Employers can – and do – effectively discriminate against known whistleblowers. This is despite the evidence that whistleblowers can bring valuable information to light, saving lives and livelihoods, and protecting reputations and finances. 

We are hopeful that the Employment Rights Bill, currently going through Parliament, will provide an opportunity to debate once again who should be protected. It isn’t hard to do – across Europe the law provides a non-exhaustive protection to include self-employed people, non-executives and volunteers. Labour promised to strengthen whistleblower protections before coming to power last summer in its “Make Work Pay” document – this would be an easy way to make a big change. 

A history of challenges 

Back in 2014 Ms Bates Van Winkelhof, a partner in a law firm, raised concerns about money laundering and bribery and was removed from her role. She had to take her case to the Supreme Court to establish that partners in law firms might be considered workers and therefore protected under whistleblowing law.   

Junior doctor Chris Day raised concerns that understaffing in the hospital where he worked was putting patient safety at risk. But his unusual relationship with the trust and with  Health Education England – which is responsible for co-ordinating the training of doctors –  meant he too had to bring a legal challenge for his rights to be protected and eventually the Court of Appeal agreed that junior doctors should be covered.

District Judge Claire Gilham – an “office holder” without a standard worker contract – was bullied after raising concerns about systematic failings in the courts, putting her safety at risk. She used human rights arguments to persuade the Court of Appeal that she should not be without a remedy when she was badly treated as a result of whistleblowing. 

Dr Nigel Maclennan took a case to the Employment Appeal Tribunal as a charity trustee after being forced out of his role when he raised governance concerns. The EAT found that there was a strong argument that being a charity trustee, President-Elect and/or President is akin to an occupational status, and therefore charity trustees might claim whistleblowing protection. 

In the latest case, Ms Sullivan raised concerns during the application process for a job at Isle of Wight Council. The Court of Appeal has now considered whether job applicants (outside the NHS) should be covered by whistleblowing protection and given its view – that they should not.  The Court decided that Parliament had looked at this issue – back in 2015 – and that it should not disturb Parliament’s settled opinion. 

All Blog Posts

Job applicants still not protected as whistleblowers 

The Court of Appeal has determined that job applicants do not have the protection of whistleblowing law.   

The whistleblowing charity Protect intervened as a third party in the case of Sullivan v Isle of Wight Council to argue that whistleblowing protection should be available to all external job applicants. The current scope of whistleblowing law only covers job applicants to the NHS who are legally protected by the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA 1996”) if they make a protected disclosure. Other workers, such as people doing work experience or agency workers, are also protected. However, all job applicants in other sectors – outside of the NHS – face the risk of being blacklisted if they blow the whistle and can be effectively excluded from the ability to work in their chosen field again.(1) The blacklisting of whistleblowers is all too frequent; employers can and do discriminate against applicants simply because they have blown the whistle in the past.  

Protect was given permission to intervene because the case gives rise to important issues of public policy. By making this intervention, Protect did not address the Court on the facts of the case or whether the Appellant should have protection from whistleblowing detriment in her particular case. 

Our intervention intended to assist the Court with a technical and complex area of law which has expanded considerably since the Public Interest Disclosure Act was passed in 1998.   

Whilst the Court has determined that job applicants do not have whistleblowing protection, the judgment makes clear that the purpose of Part IVA of the Employment Rights Act 1996 on whistleblowing protection was to protect the public interest by ensuring that information about wrongdoing, or threats to health and safety or the environment, could be disclosed.  

Elizabeth Gardiner, Protect Chief Executive said: 

“This judgment is disappointing. Job applicants who blew the whistle in a former role will have no remedy if a new employer refuses their application simply because they raised concerns in the past. We know of many whistleblowers who have had to change their professions: whistleblowing still comes with a huge personal cost. We continue to operate in a two-tier system with one rule for NHS job applicants and another rule for everyone else.  
 
The law needs to stand by all in the workplace who have the courage to speak up and stop harm and Parliament has the opportunity in the Employment Rights Bill to extend whistleblowing protections to include job applicants.”

Anna Birtwistle, a Partner in the Employment Team at Farrer & Co, noted: 

“We are privileged to have represented Protect on a Pro Bono basis with this third-party intervention. The judgment is particularly important in noting that a job applicant is capable of falling under “some other status” under Article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights, and it clearly outlines the purpose of whistleblowing provisions in the ERA to protect the public interest.” 

Protect was assisted on a Pro Bono basis by Claire Darwin KC and Nathan Roberts of Matrix Chambers, and Anna Birtwistle, Rachel Nolloth, Shehnal Amin, Rhian Lewis, Caitlin Farrar and Ali Ahmad of Farrer & Co. 

(1) The term ‘blacklist’ is used solely because it is the legal term in the ERA 1996.

Notes to editors: 
For more information please contact:

Please find copy of the Court of Appeal judgment here: Sullivan v Isle of Wight Council 03 April 2025 

In the case of Sullivan and Isle of Wight Council the submissions explored the relationship between the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA 1996”) and Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) when read in conjunction with Article 10 ECHR. 

The appeal concerned whether the ERA 1996 is compatible with the ECHR and, if not, whether it ought to be read compatibly or whether the Court ought to make a declaration of incompatibility. 

Job applicants are recognised as a group capable of having a “status” for protection from discrimination under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Protect’s intervention submitted that the ERA 1996, when read in accordance with ordinary domestic principles of interpretation, is incompatible with the ECHR. This is because external (non-NHS) job applicants can be subject to a detriment if they make a protected disclosure during the job application process, or on the ground that they have made a previous disclosure, and this difference in treatment is not justified. 

Recent Posts

A small step forward, but will the Lords leap on whistleblowing reform?

With the changing of the seasons, the government’s landmark Employment Rights Bill has now bounced from the Commons to the Lords as it continues its progress through Parliament. After a highly scrutinised passage through the Commons that led to more than 200 pages of amendments tabled, the Bill will be debated in the Lords for the first time on Thursday 27 March. 

This Bill provides a critical opportunity to improve whistleblowing protections for everyone in the workplace and revamp the way employers address and manage whistleblowing.  

Amendments to the Bill 

A total of 264 amendments were tabled in the public bill committee in the House of Commons. The 149 government amendments, put forward following consultations, were agreed to by the committee but all 115 opposition amendments were either withdrawn, not moved, or disagreed to in a division of the committee. 

We proposed three amendments to the bill. 

The first two centred on scope and test: expanding the scope of who receives whistleblower protections under law to include categories such as self-employed contractors, job applicants and trade union officials, and an amendment to change the test for dismissal. 

These amendments were picked up by two Liberal Democrat MPs, Steve Darling and Sarah Gibson, who proposed them in committee. These did not pass but they did receive a response from the Minister for the Employment Rights Bill, Justin Madders MP. 

He argued against amending the automatic unfair dismissal test as he said it would be “very difficult to accept the new clause without further consideration of the impact, because the test applies for a whole series of direct tribunal claims for automatic unfair dismissal”. We dispute this consequence; it’s been long established that whistleblowing protection is different from other areas of employment law. The Government can change whistleblowing law in this area without it impacting on other areas of employment law. 

On the scope amendment, the Minister couldn’t accept it because of “the plethora of unintended consequences and knock-on effects”, yet we’re not convinced there would be a floodgate of claims because of this change, while the risk is that without this protection some in the workplace won’t speak up. However, the Minister did concede that “[we] are aware of the long-overdue requirement to look at whistleblowing law” and stated that his recent meeting with Protect was part of that conversation. We took this as hugely encouraging – and are following up directly on his comments. 

A Duty to Investigate 

Our third amendment focuses on introducing a duty on employers to investigate whistleblowing concerns made to them. This was taken up at the Report stage by the Labour MP Alex Sobel who stated that “The status quo provides only an after-the-event remedy for whistleblowers, and this new clause would ensure that there are channels for whistleblowers from the start.”  

During the debate, Julian Smith MP, a former Conservative Cabinet Minister, asked if the government would consider adopting the amendment, to which Justin Madders’ responded by saying the Government has “begun to consider it, as [whistleblowing] legislation is now a quarter of a century old and needs looking at”. 

Whilst none of these amendments have yet been accepted, we were pleased that the Minister accepted that whistleblowing law needs updating. 

However, one of the most significant new topics introduced to the bill through new clauses and amendments was the increase in time limits within which people can make a claim to an employment tribunal (for almost all claims), from three to six months. This has huge significance to whistleblowing and whistleblowers – improving their access to justice and their opportunity of seeking redress.  As yet, no change has been made to the very short time frame (7 days from the date of dismissal) to bring an interim relief claim. 

Steps forward 

With the Bill now moving forward in the Lords, we have further opportunities to press our amendments and build support amongst peers. With the Government accepting the need for change, we just need to hold their feet to the fire and keep on pushing. 

All Blog Posts

From toxic work culture to an entire toxic town

New Netflix show exemplifies the devastating effects of not listening to whistleblowers (Spoilers alert)  

Another whistleblowing scandal has hit our screens with the new Netflix series ‘Toxic Town’, starring Aimee Lou Wood (Sex Education and The White Lotus), and Doctor Who’s Jodie Whittaker. The show has been labelled the UK’s Erin Brockovich, as a group of women, spearheaded by Whittaker’s character Susan takes on their local council and the local steelworks following a pattern of birth defects in young children. 

What happened in Corby? 

Based on true events in the town of Corby in Northamptonshire, the programme documents the environmental scandal that affected a large group of women who were unknowingly exposed to toxic dust being transported through the town. The dust particles contained heavy metal cadmium which had previously been linked to birth defects in animals. 

19 babies were born with limb differences between 1989 and 1998 – far above the national average of around two or three for a town of Corby’s size. 

Who were the whistleblowers? 

The character of Ted Jenkins is inspired by the real-life civil engineer Mark Bosence who worked for the council and oversaw the waste management of Corby’s Toxic Ponds. He began to grow concerned about the handling of the waste and filed numerous reports flagging health and safety concerns to his manager. After these were ignored, he was swiftly removed from the project. He further raised his worries with Sam Hagen who was on the council at the time, fearful that if he continued he would lose his job because of whistleblowing.  

Mr Hagen, portrayed by Robert Carlyle in the drama, told a BBC documentary in 2020, “The council officer that blew the whistle told me that the safety regulations were not being observed. They were paying fast and loose with it, in order to do the job quicker and make money,”. 

“And he decided as there was nothing he could do internally he had to tell somebody. Cos this lad knew that if he was known as the whistleblower he would lose his job. So he told me instead.” 

Following that, a journalist at the Sunday Times, Graham Hind, started looking into things and talking to local people. His investigation in April 1999 exposed the scandal and shortly afterwards, lawyer Des Collins got in touch, and offered to represent the Corby mothers if they wanted to launch legal action against the council. 

The legal battle 

It took a full nine years for the case to make it to the courts. One of the biggest issues was a lack of evidence proving the council knew about the health risks and clean up process. It took a whistleblower leaking documents to overcome this hurdle and pave the way for justice.  

Interviewed for a BBC documentary in 2020, Des Collins – portrayed in the Netflix production by actor Rory Kinnear – said, “We were scratching our heads one day when I came into the office and on my desk in a brown envelope was a lever arch file full of papers. It isn’t normal for secret documents to turn up – it is like something out of a John Grisham novel. You think people write this stuff and I quite like reading it, but it doesn’t happen in real life – but it did happen.” 

It was this evidence and a report proving the abnormal rate of birth defects in the town that helped ensure the Corby mothers won the case.  

The council was found liable for negligence, public nuisance and a breach of statutory duty; however, it continued to deny culpability and nobody has ever faced criminal proceedings. The mothers were awarded £14.6m and an apology for what they had been through. 

Top Takeaways 

In the most extreme of circumstances, the contribution of the whistleblowers was essential, eventually bringing the victims justice they deserved. Although speak up and whistleblowing cultures in local councils have significantly improved since the 90s its still an area that needs attention – and something authorities need to prioritise. Last year our own legal Advice Line received 132 calls from concerned members of staff from central and local governments across the UK. This story is as important as ever reminding us that whistleblowers spot harm and wrongdoing before anyone else, and when listened to can save lives.  

The Netflix drama has reignited interest in the story with BBC Radio Northampton producing an eight-part documentary series called In Detail: The Toxic Waste Scandal, which is presented by 32-year old George Taylor, who was born in Corby in 1992 with a unilateral upper limb defect. 

All Blog Posts