The Court of Appeal has held that the test where a worker is alleging a detriment for whistleblowing is to decide whether or not the protected disclosure has materially influenced (in the sense of being more than a trivial influence) the employer's treatment of the individual.
In Fecitt and others v NHS Manchester  IRLR 111 EAT, the EAT held that, where a worker has suffered a detriment following a protected disclosure, the employer must prove that its act or deliberate failure to act was “in no sense whatever” on the grounds that the employee had done the protected act.
This article summarises the main issues and outcomes in five employment tribunal cases that involve whistleblowing.
Claire Benson is managing associate and Helen Corbett, Sinead Jones, Helen Ward and Tori O'Neil are associates at Addleshaw Goddard LLP. They round up the latest rulings.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that, where an employee has made a protected disclosure and suffered a detriment, the employer must prove that the detriment was "in no sense whatsoever" on the ground of the protected disclosure.
Tori O'Neil, associate, and Judith Harris, legal director, at Addleshaw Goddard detail the latest rulings.
This week's case of the week, provided by DLA Piper, covers whistleblowing.
A quiz for line managers to test their knowledge on the law and practice relating to whistleblowing.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to protection from detriment in relation to protected disclosures.