Claimant suffered a detriment when making protected disclosures after being told to ‘stay in her lane’ and being subsequently dismissed without any procedure.

The claimant commenced employment with the respondent in their Belfast office in June 2022 as an Enterprise Risk Manager. The claimant’s employment was terminated on 20th April 2023 with effect from June 2023.  No procedure was followed with the claimant being informed during a Teams call without prior indication. 

Just before the termination took effect the claimant lodged a grievance especially against another individual who had been convicted previously of fraud and was struck off by the professional body for accountants. This has been stated numerous times to a range of individuals within the respondent. The grievance was not upheld. The respondent suggested that the claimant had been dismissed due to ongoing poor performance following a performance improvement plan. This was never mentioned to the claimant before her termination.  The respondent denied that the claimant had made any disclosures which were protected citing that she had failed to provide a reasonable belief that the disclosure was being made in the public interest.

The Tribunal found that there were multiple disclosures made to the respondent. Some were central to the claim whereas others were peripheral. The Tribunal found though that with some of the disclosures they were protected within the confines of the 1996 Order.  In terms of detriment the claimant was able to outline situations in which she was told to ‘stay in her lane’, ‘stop being a spokesperson for Northern Ireland’, ‘to stop going on about the conviction’, being threatened with a PIP, and ultimately dismissal. 

Even though the claimant had less than one years’ continuous service this was still an unfair dismissal as it was on the basis of protected disclosure.  As a result, the claimant received 38,589.91 for injury to feelings, aggravated damages and award relating to unfair dismissal.

The Tribunal has noted before that whistleblowers are, due to what they are raising, likely to be relentless. It is not correct for employers to deem that to be worthy of admonishment, discipline or dismissal where it does fall within the confines of a protected disclosure. This arose here with repeated issues raised in relation to a criminal conviction of another member of staff.  Such actions from the employer were regarded as detriment leading to the award given to the claimant.

NI Tribunal decisions are available on the OITFET website.