In Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti, Jhuti (J) reported to Widmer (W) that there had been a breach of Royal Mail’s rules and its regulators requirements. W advised her to admit that she was mistaken, which she did fearing she would lose her job. W then set J an “ever changing unattainable list of requirements”. J was dismissed by another manager, Vickers (V), for poor performance. V knew nothing of the background. The EAT held that J was unfairly dismissed for whistleblowing, even though V was unaware of the disclosures, because W had manipulated the facts, and so the employer was liable. The Court of Appeal disagreed. The reason for dismissal requires considering the mental processes of the dismissing officer. Even if W attempted to get J dismissed because she had made protected disclosure that motivation could not be attributed to the employer as it was not shared by V.
This update provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Click on the links to access full details. If no link is provided, contact us for more information. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, SM&B cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.