REWARD INSIGHT
Disclosure, adjustment, status
NicolaMullineux, senior employment specialist for Peninsula, reviews the decisions in three cases
Okwu v Rise Community Action In this case the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) was tasked with deciding whether an employee’s complaint qualified as a protected disclosure, therefore potentially rendering her employer’s decision to dismiss automatically unfair as a result. Okwu’s employer, a small charity that provided support to vulnerable women, extended her probationary period due to concerns over performance. Not long after this, Okwu submitted a letter of complaint that outlined her belief that the organisation was acting in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). She specifically referred to their failure to provide her with a work mobile phone and secure storage at work when she was dealing with sensitive and confidential personal information relating to service users. The charity dismissed Okwu, claiming it was satisfied that she was not prepared to take reasonable instructions in respect of the previously identified performance issues. However, in the letter of termination the organisation stated that the decision was “compounded” by her recent comments regarding data protection,
saying it demonstrated her “contempt” for the charity. Ms Okwu brought a claim to Employment Tribunal (ET) for automatic unfair dismissal on the grounds of making a protected disclosure. However, the ET dismissed this claim as aside from lacking clarity the employee was found not to have made any protected disclosures, as the matters raised were not in the public interest as they concerned her own contractual provision. This included the potential breaches of the DPA as they were relevant to her performance issues, and the ET accepted that the charity had provided clear evidence that showed it had genuine concerns. Believing the ET had erred in its approach to the question of whether her disclosures amounted to a protected disclosure, Okwu appealed to the EAT. She argued that the organisation had failed to provide a clear reason for her dismissal as they had already noted their issues with her performance and had previously extended her probationary period. Crucially, the only change between this and the time leading up to her dismissal had been her disclosures. In deciding to uphold her appeal the
EAT applied the precedent in the case Chesterton Global Limited v Nurmohamed. This case outlined that where a disclosure could have been made in the personal interests of the employee, it will be up to tribunals to determine, as a matter of fact, whether there was sufficient public interest for it to qualify as a protected disclosure. The EAT found that the ET had failed to properly consider whether the claimant had a reasonable belief that her disclosure was in the public interest. Given the sensitive nature of the information, the EAT stated it was hard to believe that it could not be. The EAT went on to explain that the ET had also failed to demonstrate why the original disclosures lacked specific details to be considered protected, as the employee had clearly demonstrated the exact nature of her concerns according to them. The case has been remitted back to tribunal to consider whether the disclosure was in fact the reason for dismissal. However, it is a good reminder that employers must be extremely cautious when basing dismissal decisions on disclosures of any kind, as they could face claims for unfair dismissal if these disclosures are later judged to be protected. Linsley v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs This case focused on the issue of reasonableness as it pertains to making
...be extremely cautious when basing dismissal decisions on disclosures of any kind...
| Professional in Payroll, Pensions and Reward | November 2019 | Issue 55 28
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker