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
New amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules and their impact
Legal Update
What does the Employment Rights Bill mean for employment practices liability insurance?
Opinion
Beyond the Bill: Exploring the horizon of new employment rights and proposed measures
Legal Update
Labour’s employment law reforms: Employment Rights Bill unveiled
Legal Update
Expanding the role of school attendance mentors
Online Event
Shaping a culture of respect and safety: Preventing sexual harassment in our schools
Online Event
Managing safeguarding allegations against staff
Online Event
How schools can grapple with new employment law to thrive in a new era
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advises fire suppression manufacturer DAS Fire on its acquisition by Alpine Fire
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advises UK climbing operator on sale to Belgian investment firm
Legal Update
Organisational approaches to ESG matters
Legal Update
Balancing acts: Navigating the complex risks in adult social care provision
Legal Update
What the UK Covid-19 Inquiry means for higher education providers
Opinion
New anticipatory duty to prevent sexual harassment at work: final EHRC guidance published
Opinion
Employment tribunal case shines light on mistaken customer communications
Press Release
Browne Jacobson launches new HR services offering in health and social care
Press Release
Browne Jacobson and CBI roundtable explores how to finance public infrastructure post-PFI
Opinion
Navigating the new norms of flexible working and reasonable adjustments
Legal Update
Hybrid working, the right to flexible working and how to make it work for public sector employers
Press Release
Comments on the publication of Universities UK’s (UUK) report
Legal Update - Procurement Act
Modification of contracts existing before the go-live date of the Procurement Act 2023
Legal Update - Procurement Act
Decisions of the Independent Patient Choice and Procurement Panel
Press Release
An interview with HSBC’s ex-commercial manager
Opinion
HMRC score on employment status: Football referees may be employees
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advises global digital transformation services provider on PE investment and acquisition of US and Hungary-based commerce consultancy
Legal Update
Supreme Court re-instates injunction in Tesco fire and re-hire case
Legal Update
A balancing act: Navigating between positive action and discrimination in the workplace
Legal Update
CQC publish National review of maternity services in England
Press Release
Leading the conversation on DEI in the food & drink industry: celebrating the contribution of women
Legal Update
Employment update: September 2024
Opinion
Publication of The Renters’ Rights Bill: Major changes to the private rented sector are on their way
Opinion
English Nationalism not a protected belief under the Equality Act
Legal Update
Motor finance complaints on hold: Why now is the time for strategic action
Legal Update - Procurement Act
Contract management and performance
Published Article
Hybrid working: The right to flexible working and how to make it work for public sector employers
Legal Update
Extended s20 voluntary care isn’t always a breach of human rights
Legal Update
Mitigating the £6.2bn black hole: Are councils maximising these resources well enough?
Opinion
What does the right to switch off mean for employers?
Opinion
Choose your words wisely: Balancing inclusivity and employees’ beliefs at work
