• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
Call us now: 01243 836 840   [email protected]
Pure Employment Law
  • Who We Are
    • Nicola Brown
    • Peter Stevens
    • Elena Elsam
    • David Jones
    • Linda Nye
    • Brenda Cherry
  • For Employers
    • Advice on HR and People issues
    • Investigations, Hearings and Appeals
    • Restructuring and Redundancy
    • Defending Employment Tribunal Claims
    • Dismissal of Senior Executives
    • Contracts, Handbooks and Policies
    • Employment Law Training
  • For Employees
    • Settlement Agreements
    • Workplace Issues including Disciplinary and Grievance
    • Bringing an Employment Tribunal Claim
  • Employment Law Events
  • Legal Updates
  • Testimonials
  • Vacancies
  • Contact us
  • Search
  • Menu Menu

Cramping my style – whistleblowing about cramped working conditions may satisfy the ‘public interest’ test

28th April 2016/in News /by Nicola Brown

The law on whistleblowing has seen a number of significant developments in recent times. We have previously updated you on the changes to whistleblowing legislation which took place in 2013. One of the changes was the addition of the public interest test. You can find our article about those changes here, and also an article on a case that explored the public interest test (Chesterton Global Ltd (t/a Chestertons) and another v Nurmohamed (2015)) here.

The public interest test was added in order to reverse the effect of the case of Parkins v Sodexho Ltd (2001), in which it was held that the definition of a qualifying disclosure was wide enough to cover a breach of the whistleblower’s own contract of employment. The government felt that this widened the scope of the legislation beyond what was originally intended.

Essentially, the public interest test means that for an employee to be protected against detriment or dismissal under the whistleblowing legislation, an employee must have made a qualifying disclosure which, in the reasonable belief of the employee making it, is made in the public interest. For a basic overview of whistleblowing legislation and what constitutes a qualifying disclosure, please see our article here.

A recent case has demonstrated that the public interest test really will be interpreted widely, which somewhat nullifies the intention by Government when it introduced the public interest test.

The case (Morgan v Royal Mencap Society) was heard in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). Ms Morgan had raised complaints with her managers that her cramped working area was adversely affecting a knee and back injury she had. It seems these complaints were not dealt with at all, or not dealt with to the satisfaction of Ms Morgan as she subsequently resigned and made claims to the Employment Tribunal for constructive unfair dismissal and that she had been subjected to a detriment for whistleblowing.

Ms Morgan claimed that the complaints she had made met the public interest test because Mencap is a charity supported by public funds, and therefore the public would be interested to know how it treats its employees. Ms Morgan also argued that it threatened the health and safety of others.

Mencap applied to the Employment Tribunal to have Ms Morgan’s whistleblowing-related claim struck out because her complaints did not meet the public interest test and therefore, had no reasonable prospect of success. The Employment Tribunal agreed with the application (which was dealt with at a preliminary hearing with limited oral evidence given, and none from Ms Morgan) and dismissed the claim. The Employment Judge noted that the public interest test can be satisfied even if there were no public interest in the disclosure, so long as the employee reasonably believed that the disclosure was in the public interest. However, the Employment Judge said in this case Ms Morgan’s disclosures were not considered to be a matter of public interest, and it could not be her reasonable belief that they were.

Ms Morgan appealed the decision to the EAT. The EAT upheld her appeal and sent the case back to the Employment Tribunal for a full hearing. The EAT said that it would only rarely be appropriate to strike out discrimination or whistleblowing-related claims without hearing the full evidence. The EAT emphasised that the test is not to determine whether a disclosure is in the public interest, but whether the employee making it held that belief and whether it was reasonable for them to do so. This is entirely dependent on the facts of the case.

We will now wait and see whether Ms Morgan is successful in the Employment Tribunal case.

The outcome of Ms Morgan’s appeal is of little surprise as it is well known that it is very rare for Employment Tribunals to grant applications for strike-out, particularly for whistleblowing-related claims and also discrimination claims. There is also no surprise that based on the way recent cases have been developing, it seems that the public interest test is going to be interpreted very widely indeed.

As always, employers should review their whistleblowing policies to make sure that a good procedure is in place for dealing with whistleblowing matters promptly. In addition, managers should be trained on these procedures and specifically made aware that whistleblowers should not be subjected to any detriment (including being ignored) or dismissed, even if their complaint does seem rather trivial in nature.

We can help with whistleblowing policies, training or advising on any particular issues involving whistleblowing. Please contact any member of the Pure Employment Law team (01243 836840 or [email protected]).

Please note that this update is not intended to be exhaustive or be a substitute for legal advice. The application of the law in this area will often depend upon the specific facts and you are advised to seek specific advice on any given scenario.

 

Share this article
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://www.pureemploymentlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Pure-Employment-Law-logo.jpg 0 0 Nicola Brown https://www.pureemploymentlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Pure-Employment-Law-logo.jpg Nicola Brown2016-04-28 09:35:322017-11-23 15:13:21Cramping my style – whistleblowing about cramped working conditions may satisfy the ‘public interest’ test

Join our mailing list

* = required field
Mailing Lists


Recent Legal Updates

  • FAQs about COT3s 18th December 2020
  • Can an employer withdraw a notice of redundancy? 18th December 2020
  • Will employers be able to insist that staff have the Covid-19 vaccination? 18th December 2020
  • Furlough over Christmas? 18th December 2020
  • Update – Furlough scheme extended 18th December 2020
Link to: Contact Us

Any questions? Why not get in touch!

Our advice is always given in plain English without any waffle, and we focus on providing practical solutions to our clients’ problems.

Contact us

LEGAL INFORMATION

Pure Employment Law | 1 Little London, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1PH
[email protected] | Tel: 01243 836840

Pure Employment Law is the trading name of Pure Employment Law Limited, registered in England and Wales with company number 07134294 and whose registered office is 1 Little London, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1PH. Pure Employment Law Limited is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with registration number 533794. A list of the company’s directors is available for inspection at the registered office

DISCLAIMER

The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only. The information is provided by Pure Employment Law and while we endeavour to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

Privacy Policy | Cookies Policy | Terms & Conditions | How to make a complaint | Sitemap

© Pure Employment Law 2021

Scroll to top

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies as defined in our cookie policy.

Accept Cookie Policy

Cookie and Privacy Settings



How we use cookies

We may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.

Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.

Essential Website Cookies

These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.

Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refuseing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.

We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.

We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.

Google Analytics Cookies

These cookies collect information that is used either in aggregate form to help us understand how our website is being used or how effective our marketing campaigns are, or to help us customize our website and application for you in order to enhance your experience.

If you do not want that we track your visit to our site you can disable tracking in your browser here:

Other external services

We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.

Google Webfont Settings:

Google Map Settings:

Google reCaptcha Settings:

Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:

Other cookies

The following cookies are also needed - You can choose if you want to allow them:

Privacy Policy

You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.

Privacy Policy
Accept settingsHide notification only