A conservation officer with the Hawk and Owl Trust was unfairly dismissed after raising concerns about the way the charity was run.
Nigel Middleton began working for HOT as a volunteer in 1985, but became employed in the title of conservation officer from October 2021. He was often quoted as a nature expert on BBC radio.
In September 2016, HOT employed a new chief operations officer, Mr Blumfield, who became Middleton’s line manager. Blumfield had operational responsibility for the day-to-day running of the trust.
In 2019, Blumfield dismissed HOT’s peregrine officer, an action that “caused unrest amongst the volunteers, who were unhappy”, the tribunal heard.
In 2021, the trust undertook some work alongside the banks of the river Wensum in its nature reserve in Sculthorpe Moor, which Middleton supervised.
Unfair dismissal
BA crew member too anxious to fly wins discrimination claim
Manager dismissed after covert recording with HR wins €10k
Man who used company credit card for himself unfairly dismissed
There was a disagreement with the Environment Agency as to whether HOT needed a permit to carry out the work, and Middleton was issued with a caution. The agency subsequently required the charity to carry out restoration work.
In 2022, Middleton raised issues with the charity’s trustees about the way he felt it was being run by Blumfield. These included concerns about staff and volunteer treatment and the way some staff had been dismissed.
The tribunal heard that Middleton had made it “clear that he had no personal vendetta, that his concerns were management styles, the long-term safety of Sculthorpe and the reputation of [HOT]”.
He accused Blumfield of being “controlling”, meaning the trust was losing volunteers and that if he (Middleton) walked out tomorrow “all of the staff and volunteers would follow him”.
After raising his concerns, however, Middleton was told his performance was being investigated.
In February 2023, he was informed that his working arrangements would change, with a proposal that his hours were reduced to one day a week from full time, on a one-year contract.
It was also proposed that he lose management of the Sculthorpe reserve and a new member of staff appointed.
Five days after Middleton had undergone knee surgery, he was called into a meeting to discuss proposed changes.
He refused the meeting, and shared disclosures with the tribunal that previous “back to work” meetings had actually been notice of the suspension or dismissal of his colleagues. These had involved “garden leave” and “payouts”, the court heard.
In May, Middleton received an email telling him that the disciplinary process about his performance was being withdrawn, and 20 minutes later he received another email telling him he had been dismissed with immediate effect.
Following the dismissal, the trust posted on social media that Middleton had been on medical leave and he would “not be returning as an employee of the Trust”, thanking him for his service.
Middleton responded with a statement that he had been made redundant, and was “fit and well”.
While his unfair dismissal claim was upheld by the judge, his claim that he was acting as a whistleblower by raising his concerns with the trustees was not.
Employment judge Warren described the charity’s dismissal of Middleton as a “woeful tale of unfairness in the process”.
The tribunal ruled that the organisation had not properly investigated Middleton’s concerns, that a referral to occupational health for mental health issues had been “spurious and mischievous”, and that its timing in sending him a disciplinary letter shortly after an operation was “crass”.
The judge added: “As we have found, there was no potentially fair reason for dismissal and therefore Mr Middleton’s complaint of unfair dismissal succeeds.
“Had there been a potentially fair reason, the procedural failings set out above would inevitably have led to a conclusion that the dismissal was unfair in any event.”
Dr Andrew McCulloch, the chair of HOT, said: “The Hawk and Owl Trust is disappointed by the findings of the tribunal, particularly given that its actions were guided by independent professional HR advice.
“While the tribunal rightly dismissed the whistleblowing allegations as being entirely unfounded and without merit, it upheld the unfair dismissal claim due to procedural shortcomings.”
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
Latest HR job opportunities on Personnel Today
Browse more human resources jobs
