HR Articles

We reported on the EAT’s decision in Royal Mail v Jhuti back in the summer. Unhappy with the EAT’s decision, Royal Mail appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal has handed down its much-awaited decision in the case of Chesterton Global v Nurmohamed and, unfortunately for employers, it does not provide the assistance they were hoping for.

It is automatically unfair to dismiss an employee on the basis that he or she has made a protected disclosure, more commonly known as ‘whistleblowing’.

Dr Day entered into a training contract with Health Education England (“HEE”). HEE placed Dr Day on a series of training placements with different NHS trusts.

The Chief Executive of Barclays, Jes Staley, is being investigated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Bank England Prudential Regulation Authority for breaching rules regarding whistleblowing in the workplace.

In the recent case of McTigue v University Hospital Bristol NHS Foundation Trust the EAT clarified that agency workers can bring detriment claims against end users provided the end user (on its own or in conjunction with the agency) has substantially determined the terms of the worker’s engagement.

In the recent case of Royal Mail Group Limited v Jhuti, the Employment Appeal Tribunal decided that an employee had been automatically unfairly dismissed even though the manager responsible for the decision had been unaware of her protected disclosures.

The recent case of Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth has demonstrated that when assessing if there has been a disclosure of information, for whistle-blowing purposes, ‘information’ and ‘allegations’ are often intertwined and Tribunals should not fall into the trap of treating disclosures as either one or the other.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) recently revisited the issue of whether an employee’s disclosure was made in the public interest.