Skip to main content
CLOSE

Charities

Close

Corporate and Commercial

Close

Employment and Immigration

Close

Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance

Close

Fraud and Investigations

Close

Individuals

Close

Litigation

Close

Planning, Infrastructure and Regeneration

Close

Public Law

Close

Real Estate

Close

Restructuring and Insolvency

Close

Energy

Close

Entrepreneurs

Close

Private Wealth

Close

Real Estate

Close

Tech and Innovation

Close

Transport and Infrastructure

Close
Home / News and Insights / Insights / Fairness of whistleblowing dismissal depends on what the decision-maker knew, not what they should have known

Under the Employment Rights Act 1996, if the main reason for an employee’s dismissal is the fact that they have made a protected disclosure, the dismissal will be automatically unfair. In Royal Mail Ltd v Jhuti, the Court of Appeal has reversed the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) and ruled that an employee could not have been automatically unfairly dismissed for making a protected disclosure if the person making the decision to dismiss was unaware of the disclosure.

Ms Jhuti believed that another employee had breached the requirements of Royal Mail and its regulator, Ofcom, and reported this to her line manager, Mr Widmer. Mr Widmer reacted by questioning her understanding of those requirements, and asked her to send him an email retracting her allegations. Fearing that she might lose her job, Ms Jhuti did as he requested. Mr Widmer subsequently asked Ms Jhuti to attend weekly meetings to monitor her progress and set her what she regarded as unattainable targets. Ms Jhuti went on sick leave and raised a grievance complaining that she was being harassed and bullied as a result of her disclosures.

Royal Mail appointed another manager, Ms Vickers, to review Ms Jhuti’s position at the organisation, but not her grievance. Ms Vickers was told by Mr Widmer that Ms Jhuti had made an allegation of improper conduct but that this had been retracted. Believing his account, Ms Vickers dismissed Ms Jhuti for poor performance. Following an unsuccessful appeal, Ms Jhuti brought a claim for automatic unfair dismissal as a result of making protected disclosures.

Following the case of Reynolds v CLFIS (UK) Ltd, the Employment Tribunal held that Ms Jhuti had not been automatically unfairly dismissed because Ms Vickers did not know about her protected disclosures. However, the EAT disagreed, ruling that a decision to dismiss made on the basis of misleading information provided by the employee’s manager could be attributed to the employer.

The Court of Appeal has now allowed Royal Mail’s appeal, ruling that Ms Jhuti’s dismissal was fair. In the context of the unfair dismissal provisions in the Employment Rights Act 1996, which include whistleblowing dismissals, the focus of a Tribunal had to be on the state of mind of the person authorised to take the decision to dismiss on behalf of the employer. This had to be determined by what the decision-maker actually knew, not by knowledge attributed to them. In this case, any motivation on the part of Mr Widmer to dismiss Ms Jhuti because she had made a protected disclosure could not be attributed to Ms Vickers, who knew nothing of that disclosure. Ms Vickers had made her decision on the basis of what she reasonably understood to be inadequate performance.

Subject to any appeal, this is an important ruling which clarifies that Tribunals must assess the mental processes of the dismissing manager in order to determine the reason for unfair dismissal. Unfair conduct on the part of individual colleagues or managers is immaterial unless it can be attributed to the employer. This means that cases where information has been manipulated will be subject to particular scrutiny. The Court of Appeal stressed that employers may not always be able to avoid liability where information has been concealed or distorted, for example, if information is manipulated by a manager with some responsibility for the disciplinary investigation or by a very senior employee such as a CEO.

Related Articles

Our Offices

London
One Bartholomew Close
London
EC1A 7BL

Cambridge
50/60 Station Road
Cambridge
CB1 2JH

Reading
The Anchorage, 34 Bridge Street
Reading RG1 2LU

Southampton
4 Grosvenor Square
Southampton SO15 2BE

 

Reading
The Anchorage, 34 Bridge Street
Reading RG1 2LU

Southampton
4 Grosvenor Square
Southampton SO15 2BE

  • Lexcel
  • CYBER ESSENTIALS PLUS

© BDB Pitmans 2024. One Bartholomew Close, London EC1A 7BL - T +44 (0)345 222 9222

Our Services

Charities chevron
Corporate and Commercial chevron
Employment and Immigration chevron
Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance chevron
Fraud and Investigations chevron
Individuals chevron
Litigation chevron
Planning, Infrastructure and Regeneration chevron
Public Law chevron
Real Estate chevron
Restructuring and Insolvency chevron

Sectors and Groups

Private Wealth chevron
Real Estate chevron
Transport and Infrastructure chevron