Newsletters

Whistleblowing

The EAT has held that a dismissing manager cannot be liable for a whistleblowing detriment claim where they were not personally motivated by the whistleblowing disclosures.

Over a period of two years, the claimant made several disclosures about staffing issues to the respondent employer. The claimant’s line manager (manager A) later instigated an investigation into conduct allegations against the claimant. An investigation and disciplinary process then followed, at the end of which the claimant was dismissed by another manager (manager B). The decision to dismiss was taken solely by manager B, who was not aware of the claimant’s history of disclosures about staffing issues. As well as a claim of whistleblowing dismissal against the employer, the claimant brought whistleblowing detriment claims against the employer and both individual managers.

When considering the detriment claims against the individual managers, the Tribunal found that manager A had been a “key influence” on manager B and had been a material influence on the decision to dismiss. It concluded, however, that manager A could not be personally liable for detriment as he had not taken the decision to dismiss. On the other hand, the Tribunal held that manager B was personally liable for the detriment of dismissal as, in the Tribunal’s view, the motives of manager A could be attributed to manager B.

The EAT overturned this on appeal, dismissing the claim against manager B. The EAT...

Read Full Story: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMigAFBVV95cUxON1NqQzJXUUtOSjhzanRXNDF5...