{"id":914,"date":"2015-11-05T12:00:41","date_gmt":"2015-11-05T12:00:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogsite\/?p=914"},"modified":"2015-11-05T12:00:41","modified_gmt":"2015-11-05T12:00:41","slug":"whistleblowing-public-interest-update","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogs\/whistleblowing-public-interest-update\/","title":{"rendered":"Whistleblowing and the public interest: an update"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>You may recall the case of <em>Chesterton<\/em> which we discussed in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogsite\/whistleblowing-claims-whose-interest-are-they-in\/\">our last blog <\/a>about whistleblowing. In <em>Chesterton<\/em> the EAT considered the meaning of the \u201cpublic interest\u201d test. This test was inserted into the\u00a0Public 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.<\/p>\n<p>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.\u00a0Following on from\u00a0<em>Chesterton<\/em>, a further decision from the EAT has been made on the interpretation of the public interest test.<\/p>\n<p>In <em><u>Underwood v Wincanton plc<\/u><\/em> the EAT considered the words \u201cin the public interest\u201d to determine whether the group of employees had made a protected disclosure.\u00a0In 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).<\/p>\n<p>Mr Underwood (C)\u00a0was 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.<\/p>\n<p>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.\u00a0Mr Underwood appealed to the EAT.<\/p>\n<p>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.\u00a0Following<em> Chesterton<\/em>, 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 <em>Chesterton<\/em>\u00a0, 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.<\/p>\n<p>The case of <em>Chesterton<\/em> is being appealed to the Court of Appeal and will be heard next year. Stay tuned for more updates in this area&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>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 \u201cpublic interest\u201d test. This test was inserted into the\u00a0Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (the Act) in the hopes it would prevent employees making allegations about [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[15],"tags":[99,39],"class_list":["post-914","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news","tag-whistleblowing","tag-employment-rights"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v28.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Whistleblowing and the public interest: an update | Blogs<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"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 \u201cpublic interest\u201d 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.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogs\/whistleblowing-public-interest-update\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Whistleblowing and the public interest: an update | Blogs\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"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 \u201cpublic interest\u201d 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.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogs\/whistleblowing-public-interest-update\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Blogs\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2015-11-05T12:00:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Taylor Emmet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Taylor Emmet\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\\\/blogs\\\/whistleblowing-public-interest-update\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\\\/blogs\\\/whistleblowing-public-interest-update\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Taylor Emmet\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\\\/blogs\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0f64ab2719ec91cc661de8b2375446b7\"},\"headline\":\"Whistleblowing and the public interest: an update\",\"datePublished\":\"2015-11-05T12:00:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\\\/blogs\\\/whistleblowing-public-interest-update\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":506,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\\\/blogs\\\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"#whistleblowing\",\"employment rights\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Employment Law\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\\\/blogs\\\/whistleblowing-public-interest-update\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\\\/blogs\\\/whistleblowing-public-interest-update\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\\\/blogs\\\/whistleblowing-public-interest-update\\\/\",\"name\":\"Whistleblowing and the public interest: an update | Blogs\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\\\/blogs\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2015-11-05T12:00:41+00:00\",\"description\":\"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 \u201cpublic interest\u201d 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.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\\\/blogs\\\/whistleblowing-public-interest-update\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\\\/blogs\\\/whistleblowing-public-interest-update\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\\\/blogs\\\/whistleblowing-public-interest-update\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\\\/blogs\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Employment Law\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\\\/blogs\\\/category\\\/news\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Whistleblowing and the public interest: an update\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\\\/blogs\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\\\/blogs\\\/\",\"name\":\"Blogs\",\"description\":\"Taylor Emmet Sheffield Solicitors\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\\\/blogs\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\\\/blogs\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\\\/blogs\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Blogs\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\\\/blogs\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\\\/blogs\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\\\/blogs\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2022\\\/04\\\/cropped-tayloremmet_logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\\\/blogs\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2022\\\/04\\\/cropped-tayloremmet_logo.png\",\"width\":300,\"height\":177,\"caption\":\"Blogs\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\\\/blogs\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\\\/blogs\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0f64ab2719ec91cc661de8b2375446b7\",\"name\":\"Taylor Emmet\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/c461c34a9cfa61bb17ef31389a26742c670e24dde77c40c3f2053b014e900b0d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/c461c34a9cfa61bb17ef31389a26742c670e24dde77c40c3f2053b014e900b0d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/c461c34a9cfa61bb17ef31389a26742c670e24dde77c40c3f2053b014e900b0d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Taylor Emmet\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\\\/\\\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\\\/blogs\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\\\/blogs\\\/author\\\/m1k3robinson\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Whistleblowing and the public interest: an update | Blogs","description":"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 \u201cpublic interest\u201d 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.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogs\/whistleblowing-public-interest-update\/","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Whistleblowing and the public interest: an update | Blogs","og_description":"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 \u201cpublic interest\u201d 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.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogs\/whistleblowing-public-interest-update\/","og_site_name":"Blogs","article_published_time":"2015-11-05T12:00:41+00:00","author":"Taylor Emmet","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Taylor Emmet","Estimated reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogs\/whistleblowing-public-interest-update\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogs\/whistleblowing-public-interest-update\/"},"author":{"name":"Taylor Emmet","@id":"https:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogs\/#\/schema\/person\/0f64ab2719ec91cc661de8b2375446b7"},"headline":"Whistleblowing and the public interest: an update","datePublished":"2015-11-05T12:00:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogs\/whistleblowing-public-interest-update\/"},"wordCount":506,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogs\/#organization"},"keywords":["#whistleblowing","employment rights"],"articleSection":["Employment Law"],"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogs\/whistleblowing-public-interest-update\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogs\/whistleblowing-public-interest-update\/","url":"https:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogs\/whistleblowing-public-interest-update\/","name":"Whistleblowing and the public interest: an update | Blogs","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogs\/#website"},"datePublished":"2015-11-05T12:00:41+00:00","description":"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 \u201cpublic interest\u201d 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.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogs\/whistleblowing-public-interest-update\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogs\/whistleblowing-public-interest-update\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogs\/whistleblowing-public-interest-update\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogs\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Employment Law","item":"https:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogs\/category\/news\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Whistleblowing and the public interest: an update"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogs\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogs\/","name":"Blogs","description":"Taylor Emmet Sheffield Solicitors","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogs\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogs\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogs\/#organization","name":"Blogs","url":"https:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogs\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogs\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogs\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/cropped-tayloremmet_logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogs\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/cropped-tayloremmet_logo.png","width":300,"height":177,"caption":"Blogs"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogs\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogs\/#\/schema\/person\/0f64ab2719ec91cc661de8b2375446b7","name":"Taylor Emmet","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c461c34a9cfa61bb17ef31389a26742c670e24dde77c40c3f2053b014e900b0d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c461c34a9cfa61bb17ef31389a26742c670e24dde77c40c3f2053b014e900b0d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c461c34a9cfa61bb17ef31389a26742c670e24dde77c40c3f2053b014e900b0d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Taylor Emmet"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogs"],"url":"https:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogs\/author\/m1k3robinson\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/914","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=914"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/914\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=914"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=914"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.tayloremmet.co.uk\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=914"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}