You may recall the case of Chesterton which we discussed in our last blog about whistleblowing. In Chesterton the EAT considered the meaning of the “public interest” test. This test was inserted into the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (the Act) in the hopes it would prevent employees making allegations about breaches of their own contract of employment, often in order to negotiate a higher severance package for themselves.
The EAT held that it was not necessary to show that a disclosure was of interest to the public as a whole, as it is inevitable that only a section of the public would be directly affected by any given disclosure. Following on from Chesterton, a further decision from the EAT has been made on the interpretation of the public interest test.
In Underwood v Wincanton plc the EAT considered the words “in the public interest” to determine whether the group of employees had made a protected disclosure. In order for a worker to be protected against a detriment or dismissal under the Act, they have to have made a qualifying disclosure. This is any disclosure made in the reasonable belief that he or she is making this in the public interest and shows one of six specific types of wrongdoing (a criminal offence, breach of any legal obligations, miscarriage of justice, danger to the health and safety of any individual, damage to the environment and deliberate concealing of information about any of the aforementioned).
Mr Underwood (C) was a HGV driver for Wincanton plc. In November 2013, he alongside three of his colleagues submitted a written complaint which was mainly about how overtime was allocated to drivers. He was dismissed in June 2014. C brought proceedings arguing that the complaint amounted to a protected disclosure for the purposes of the whistleblowing legislation.
The Tribunal struck out the claim holding the complaint related to a dispute between the employees and the employer relating to their terms and conditions. The public would not be directly or indirectly affected by this. Mr Underwood appealed to the EAT.
The EAT noted that the complaints raised concerns about vehicle safety and road-worthiness, which raised wider issues about road safety which could be a matter of public interest. Following Chesterton, the EAT held that a finding that the dispute between the parties could never be said to be in the public interest was interpreting the public interest test too narrowly. In relation to whether reasonable belief was present, reaffirming the principles laid out in Chesterton , the EAT held that there was no reason why an issue ostensibly arising out of the employment relationship is not capable of also being within the public interest. Once again an individual contractual dispute is capable of being protected by legislation despite the Government apparently seeking to prevent this with the inclusion of the public interest test.
The case of Chesterton is being appealed to the Court of Appeal and will be heard next year. Stay tuned for more updates in this area…
0 Comments