0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

stop banging on…

17 April 2014

It can be frustrating when an employee raises a concern but continues to dogmatically pursue it even when the matter has concluded. But if the employee was ‘blowing the whistle’ any disciplinary action taken as a result could result in a detriment claim under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

This was exactly the case in Panayiotou v Kernaghan. The Tribunal found that the claimant had raised a protected disclosure but would not accept any answer and continued to pursue the matter. As a result, the claimant became unmanageable and was dismissed. However, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the reason for the dismissal was the manner in which the claimant had pursued his complaints and that this was distinct from the protected disclosure. Therefore his claim failed.

The lesson to be learnt is that if you are disciplining an employee in these circumstances make it clear it is the manner of the disclosure, and not the disclosure itself, that is the act of misconduct.

related opinions

World Menopause Day

To mark this, ACAS has produced new guidance for managing the menopause at work, providing advice on the symptoms and potential impact of the menopause and the types of support that can be offered.

View blog

Sexual Harassment in the workplace – consequences of getting it wrong

A partner at a Magic Circle law firm has this week been ordered to pay £235,000 in fines and costs by a disciplinary tribunal, having been found guilty of breaching his professional obligations.

View blog

High Court finds against WASPI women

The High Court has rejected the judicial review claim brought by the campaign group BackTo60 against the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP).

View blog

When does misconduct by a professional amount to professional misconduct?

The Court of Appeal has considered what amounts to professional conduct for the purposes of the MHPS in the case of Idu –v- The East Suffolk & North Essex NHS Foundation Trust.
The allegations raised against the Appellant surgeon included, amongst others, refusals to follow management instructions and inappropriate (rude, uncivil, and, on occasions, aggressive) verbal and written communications.

View blog

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up