Does an employer have to consider the private life of a whistle blowing employee?
The Court of Appeal in Tiplady v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council held that in order for the Employment Rights Act 1996 to apply, an employee must suffer a detriment in the field of employment in to bring a whistleblowing claim. It is not adequate if the burden only affects the employee’s private life.
Mrs Tiplady was an employee of the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council and held the position of a Senior Planning Officer. For two years Mr and Mrs Tiplady made a number of complaints to the Council concerning their own property. The complaint related to a sewer and the construction of a shed. Mrs Tiplady became very displeased with the way the Council dealt with her complaint and she raised a grievance and shortly after resigned.
Unfair Dismissal
She started claims for constructive unfair dismissal and automatically unfair dismissal for whistleblowing. She alleged that she had suffered many detriments as a result of making the whistleblowing disclosures. The majority of the alleged detriments about which she protested were connected to the way the Council had processed complaints about property matters as a householder, and not in her position as an employee.
Both the Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeals Tribunal dismissed her claim. The Employment Tribunal’s held that whistleblowing protection given to employees was confined only to a detriment suffered in the employment field. She however contended that the wording of the legislation did not limit the extent of protection to detriment suffered in the field of employment. She was allowed to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal. The Court of Appeal approved the Tribunals decision that whistleblowing protection for employees is only given to detriment suffered by the employee in the employment field. Therefore, any detriment to which an employee is subjected to in their private or personal life is not covered.
The Court of Appeal consider how a detriment should be recognised as having arisen in the employment field. The Court of Appeal suggested that Tribunals should try to establish in what capacity the detriment was suffered, and was the detriment suffered as an employee.
The Court of Appeal suggested but that the employment field should be interpreted narrowly but also recognised that there are bound to be marginal cases. The Judges said this particular case should not be seen as definitive guidance. Employers should be cautious before deciding that a disclosure is not connected to employment. The association between some individuals work and personal life maybe multifaceted, particularly where an employee has connections with their employer both as an employee and in an alternative capacity.
If this article raises any queries in relation to whistle blowing please give us a call on 0333 240 7208 or contact us here.
