Supreme Court extends whistle-blower protection
The decision of the Supreme Court extends the scope of whistle-blower protection and is a wider approach than that taken in direct discrimination claims.
The Supreme Court has now published its decision in respect of Royal Mail Group Limited v Jhuti.
The Employment Tribunal previously made findings of fact that:
- Ms Jhuti had made protected disclosures to her line manager;
- The line manager’s response was to pretend (over the course of several months) that her performance was inadequate; and
- In due course, another officer appointed by the company decided that Ms Jhuti should be dismissed.
Importantly, the dismissing officer had no reason to doubt the truthfulness of the material indicating that Ms Jhuti’s performance was inadequate and so, from her perspective, the genuine reason for dismissal was inadequate performance. The issue was therefore whether, in an unfair dismissal claim, the reason for dismissal could be other than that given to the employee by the decision-maker. The Employment Tribunal and Court of Appeal held that it couldn’t; the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that it could. The Supreme Court has now agreed with the EAT.
The Supreme Court decided that where a person in the “hierarchy of responsibility” above the employee (here, Ms Jhuti’s line manager), determines that the employee should be dismissed for one reason (here, the making of protected disclosures) but hides that reason behind an invented reason (here, inadequate performance) which the decision-maker adopts, then it is the duty of the court to look through than invention. The reason for dismissal will therefore be the hidden reason, rather than the invented one.
The decision of the Supreme Court extends the scope of whistle-blower protection and is a wider approach than that taken in direct discrimination claims where it is the thought-processes and motivation of the decision-maker (or makers) that remain key. Employers will need to ensure that they have a complete picture of the situation prior to dismissal to avoid findings that decisions have been taken on the basis of incorrect information, particularly where, as was the case in Jhuti, the employee is too ill to fully participate in the dismissal process.
Contact
Mark Hickson
Head of Business Development
onlineteaminbox@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)370 270 6000
Related expertise
You may be interested in...
Legal Update
School leaders survey Spring 2024 - the results are in!
Legal Update
OFS Consultation on freedom of speech guidance
Opinion
Can teachers personal and political views amount to misconduct?
Press Release
Browne Jacobson to advise East London Waste Authority on major waste programme
Legal Update
Government updates guidance on holiday rules: What employers need to know
Legal Update
Holiday pay: Government change clarifies treatment of term time only workers
Legal Update
Cyber-attacks in UK universities: Why failing to prepare is no longer an option
Opinion
R (Willmott) v Eastbourne Council: High Court rules council can deny social housing to disabled ex-tenant over anti-social behaviour
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advises Greater Manchester Combined Authority on its investment in Beryl
Opinion
School attendance matters
Opinion
Caregivers at work: Navigating new carer's leave regulations
Opinion
EHRC publishes new guidance on menopause and the workplace
Opinion
Fire and re-hire: Updated statutory code summary for employers
Legal Update
Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil Council: A game changing decision for local authorities
Legal Update
How do holiday pay reforms affect the education sector?
Legal Update
Revised Acas Code of Practice on requests for flexible working
Legal Update
Restrictive covenants – look before you leap!
Legal Update
Court of Appeal decision again demonstrates the need for reform of the Solicitors Minimum Terms
Legal Update
Veganism and manufacturing: Protected characteristics from discrimination in employment law
Opinion
Settlement agreements: Court of Session finds future claims may be settled
Legal Update
Holiday reforms: What employers need to know
Press Release
Landmark Supreme Court decision clarifies the extent of Doctors’ Duty of Care
Legal Update
Employment law in 2024: How changes impact education
Legal Update
Backpay for leavers: Employers risk unlawful deduction from wages claims
Opinion
New employment rights set to come into force
Legal Update
Minimum Service Levels introduced for ambulance, rail, and border security
Opinion
BBC personality wins appeal on IR35 status
Legal Update
Proposed amendments to the Arbitration Act 1996
Legal Update
The downfall of Vesttoo: Fraudulent letters of credit
Opinion
Autumn statement 2023 – key take outs for employers
Opinion
Collective bargaining rights
Opinion
Agency cover and strike action
Opinion
Updates in equality – An overview of new regulations
Opinion
Minimum Service Levels and reasonable steps – consultation response
Legal Update
Holiday entitlement and pay: Reforms ahead
Legal Update
A positive duty to prevent sexual harassment
Legal Update
Are amendments to be expected for the Arbitration Act 1996?
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advises Care Fertility Group on acquisition of CRGW
Legal Update
The commercial realities of disputes and litigation
