This is a David and Goliath story, as most whistleblowing cases are. Whistleblowing can be about a variety of wrongdoing, as well as the attempted cover-up of public interest concerns.
The Green Energy Scandal
In October 2022, a few weeks after Rowaa joined, Drax was the subject of significant public scrutiny and outrage as BBC Panorama released a documentary: “The Green Energy Scandal” which claimed that Drax was using high-quality wood to burn for energy by chopping down trees and taking logs from some of the world’s most precious forests in North America. This contradicted the claims Drax had made to the UK government, that it only used sustainable sources such as waste wood and sawdust to make wood pellets, which entitled them to the subsidies (mainly funded by taxpayers). According to the Panorama programme, those subsidies totalled £6 billion.
The effect of the Panorama programme internally at Drax, especially within the corporate affairs team, was seismic. Rowaa attempted to ascertain if Panorama’s allegations were true and advised that Drax ought to be up-front to get ahead of the scandal. It became very clear that Rowaa’s forensic approach to these issues was unwelcome. She became increasingly aware of information which demonstrated that Panorama’s claims were true and that Drax had misled the public, the government and its regulator Ofgem.
Crucially, senior management concealed that they knew about Drax’s misleading comments before Panorama was aired and dismissed the importance of the allegations set out in the documentary. When Rowaa instructed her team to produce a report to rebut Panorama’s allegations and answer questions put to Drax by the Government, she was told by her manager to ignore them.
Raising whistleblowing concerns
Rowaa felt her line manager’s response was inadequate and she raised her concerns to Drax’s CEO Will Gardiner on 2 November 2022. She set out that she felt Drax had lied to the regulator about the type of wood they were using for wood pellets. Rowaa felt this had been mispresented to the CEO.
The fallout
Drax investigated some of Rowaa’s whistleblowing concerns under the company’s internal grievance procedure, which meant the individuals named had the right to know allegations put to them and the right to reply. Her anonymity as a whistleblower disintegrated. Rowaa began to be subjected to negative treatment as the investigation progressed and felt it swiftly turned into an attack on her character and conduct.
On 10 January 2023 Rowaa was called to a meeting which she thought was to discuss the outcome of the investigation into the whistleblowing concerns. Rowaa was instead presented with a non-disclosure agreement as the company attempted to eject her from the organisation.
It was at this point that Rowaa contacted Protect. We advised Rowaa on her rights under whistleblowing law. We advised her that it was likely she had made a qualifying protected disclosure, the legal term for whistleblowing, and that Drax threatening to extend her probation and pushing her to leave could be retaliation for blowing the whistle.
Rowaa had a compelling argument to push back against the threats from Drax and refuse the settlement. We also advised that she should have been given ample time to consider the settlement agreement and not be forced to accept it under pressure. Acas guidance is that individuals should be given a minimum of 10 days to consider the terms of any settlement agreement.
Rowaa did not accept the settlement. She was told she had passed her probation, but she was placed on indefinite ‘special leave’ – shut out of all working systems and prohibited from speaking to colleagues. We advised Rowaa this seemed more like an unjustified suspension, again retaliation for whistleblowing.
Following our advice, Rowaa also raised a complaint to her employer that she was being subjected to whistleblowing detriment, which is unlawful.
Drax commissioned an independent employment barrister to conduct an investigation into whether Rowaa had been subjected to unlawful detriment. Rowaa argued that Drax concocted a story that there had been a breakdown in trust and in working relationships before she blew the whistle. Drax relied entirely on the independent report and dismissed Rowaa on 17 January 2024.
As part of the investigation, Drax executives told the barrister that Rowaa could not return from special leave because they suspected she had “gone to Ofgem.” The Tribunal later heard evidence from the barrister, who described this behaviour as unlawful retaliation.
Legal claims and public scrutiny
Rowaa brought claims for whistleblower detriment and dismissal against Drax and named individuals in the Employment Tribunal. Protect supported Rowaa providing legal advice on bringing a claim in the Employment Tribunal.
Since the Panorama programme was broadcast, Drax has been investigated by Ofgem and fined £25 million for failing to report data accurately – the same issues Rowaa raised in her disclosures to the Drax CEO 18 months earlier. The issue of companies receiving public subsidies without concrete evidence to support their green credentials was debated in the House of Lords. The Public Accounts Committee also to ensure that the Government could be certain burning biomass is sustainable.
Given the public interest in Rowaa’s claim and the issues she was raising, a philanthropic donor, Louis Bacon, offered support to ensure the case went to court. This support was monumental and ensured Rowaa was represented by an excellent legal team. The hearing was set to last for twenty days commencing on 6 March 2025 with many witnesses being called to give evidence.
During the hearing, admissions were made that a senior manager, Jonathan Oates, had fabricated contemporaneous notes to make it look as though there had been a breakdown in relationships prior to Rowaa blowing the whistle.
On the seventh day of the hearing the parties agreed to settle the case without an admission of liability. This agreement allows Rowaa to continue to campaign on these issues and speak about her experiences at Drax.
Rowaa felt strongly that she should take her case to the Employment Tribunal. Indeed, her hearing was attended by many national newspapers who had an interest in exposing the environmental harm caused by burning biomass, and the subsidies scandal. In the course of giving evidence Rowaa referred the Tribunal to many previously unseen documents which were in the public interest. This case has led to further reporting into this environmental scandal and greater public awareness of the issues.
This case could not have been brought without the help of a philanthropic donor, and many other whistleblowers are unable to bring cases against an employer with money and legal expertise that they lack. Whistleblowers play an intrinsic role in uncovering wrongdoing yet too often this comes at a significant personal cost, including, like Rowaa, the loss of their job.