• Robert Spicer

WHISTLEBLOWING


Automatic unfair dismissal

Main or principal reason test

Case Secure Care UK Ltd v Mott (2022) Morning Star, January 4, EAT Facts M was employed by SC as logistics manager. Shortly after starting employment he raised concerns about staffing levels. In September 2018 he was instructed to tell a client that SC had cover for an assignment. This was untrue. M told his manager that SC was in breach of health and safety regulations, working time regulations and the requirements of the Care Quality Commission. In November 2018 he was dismissed for redundancy. He complained of automatic unfair dismissal by reason of making protected disclosures. The ET found that he had made three protected disclosures. The decision to make M redundant had been materially influence by the protected disclosures and his complaint was upheld, SC appealed to the EAT.

Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the ET. 2. Section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 states, in summary, that an employee who is dismissed shall be regarded as unfairly dismissed if the reason, or if more than one, the principal reason for the dismissal is that the employee made a protected disclosure. 3. The ET had applied the wrong causation test in that it had relied on the material influence test rather than the sole/principal reason test.

1 view0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Limitation Case TVZ v Manchester City Football Club Ltd [2022] EWHC 7, Hugh Court Facts Eight men who had been sexually abused by a football coach in the 1980s claimed compensation in negligence fro

Civil proceedings Until 1948 the Crown could not be made a party to a civil action. This was an offshoot of the principle of sovereign immunity. The Crown Proceedings Act 1947 changed this rule. The C

Recent examples In June 2018 prison officers were taking part in a petrol bomb training exercise. This was part of an eight-day commanders course at the National Tactical Response Group training facil