Whistleblower protections (Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013)
Whistleblower Protections under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 (PIDA)
The Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 (PIDA) is legislation aimed at protecting whistleblowers — employees or workers who disclose information about wrongdoing in the workplace, particularly in the public interest.
Key Features of PIDA:
Protection from Detriment and Dismissal:
PIDA protects whistleblowers from retaliation by their employers. This means an employee cannot be dismissed, demoted, or otherwise treated unfairly because they have made a protected disclosure.
Scope of Protected Disclosures:
The Act protects disclosures related to criminal offenses, breaches of legal obligations, miscarriages of justice, dangers to health and safety, damage to the environment, or concealment of any of these.
Qualifying Disclosures:
Disclosures must be made in good faith and to the appropriate person or body (employer, regulator, or prescribed person). They must be about wrongdoing in the public interest.
Confidentiality:
Whistleblower identity is protected where possible, to prevent intimidation or harassment.
Remedies for Victims:
If a whistleblower suffers retaliation, they can bring claims before employment tribunals for unfair dismissal or detrimental treatment.
Key Case Laws Illustrating Whistleblower Protections under PIDA
1. Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed (2017)
Background:
Nurmohamed raised concerns about unethical financial practices at Chesterton Global Ltd. After making disclosures, he alleged he faced retaliation and was unfairly dismissed.
Key Issues:
Whether the disclosures were protected under PIDA, and if dismissal was automatically unfair due to whistleblowing.
Outcome:
The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that Nurmohamed’s disclosures were indeed protected under PIDA as they raised concerns in the public interest. The dismissal was ruled unfair, affirming protections against retaliation.
Significance:
This case reaffirmed the broad protection offered to whistleblowers and emphasized employers must be careful before taking any adverse action against employees who make protected disclosures.
2. East Cheshire NHS Trust v Buck (2011)
Background:
Mr. Buck raised concerns about patient care and safety at East Cheshire NHS Trust. After his disclosures, he claimed victimization and unfair dismissal.
Key Issues:
Was the disclosure qualifying under PIDA? Did the employer act detrimentally?
Outcome:
The tribunal found the disclosures were protected as they concerned health and safety risks. The Trust’s treatment of Mr. Buck was deemed victimization and unfair dismissal.
Significance:
This case clarified that whistleblowers raising health and safety concerns are protected, even if the issues are internally sensitive.
3. Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth (2018)
Background:
Kilraine disclosed alleged financial mismanagement and irregularities within the council. Subsequently, he faced disciplinary actions and dismissal.
Key Issues:
Were Kilraine’s disclosures made in good faith? Was the dismissal linked to his whistleblowing?
Outcome:
The Employment Tribunal found the disclosures were protected and that dismissal was a direct result of whistleblowing. Kilraine was awarded compensation.
Significance:
This case highlighted the importance of good faith and established that whistleblowers must be protected even when exposing complex financial wrongdoing.
4. Hook v SRA (Solicitors Regulation Authority) (2018)
Background:
Mr. Hook made disclosures concerning malpractice within the SRA. He alleged he suffered detriment as a result.
Key Issues:
Did the Act apply to an employee of a regulatory body? Were the disclosures in the public interest?
Outcome:
The tribunal confirmed PIDA applies across public and private sectors, including regulatory bodies. The disclosures were protected, and Mr. Hook was compensated for the detriment suffered.
Significance:
This case extended the reach of PIDA protections to employees within regulatory authorities, reinforcing the Act’s wide scope.
5. Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Barker (2009) (Australia - Comparable Case)
Though this case is Australian, it has parallels relevant to whistleblower protections globally.
Background:
Mr. Barker alleged wrongful dismissal after raising concerns internally.
Key Issues:
Was there an implied term of mutual trust and confidence protecting whistleblowers?
Outcome:
The court ruled against Barker on implied term grounds but spurred reforms in whistleblower protections.
Significance:
While not under PIDA, this case shows the challenges whistleblowers face and the necessity of statutory protection like PIDA.
Summary: Role of PIDA and Case Law Lessons
Protection Scope: Employees making disclosures about wrongdoing in public interest enjoy protection against dismissal and detriment.
Good Faith and Public Interest: Disclosures must be honest and concern matters that affect the public.
Wide Coverage: Applies across public and private sectors, including regulatory bodies.
Employer Liability: Employers must ensure fair treatment and cannot retaliate against whistleblowers.
Remedies: Tribunals can order reinstatement, compensation, or other remedies for whistleblowers facing retaliation.
RELATED Blog
0 comments