ALM Medical Services v Bladon:  IRLR 807, CA
B disclosed concerns to the nursing home inspectorate about patient welfare at an ALM home where he worked. The NHI inspected the home and investigated the matter. B was given a written warning about raising the complaint. He was then subjected to another disciplinary hearing and summarily dismissed. He complained of unfair dismissal and that the written warning was a detriment arising from making a protected disclosure. The employment tribunal held that the employer’s evidence was irrelevant and need not be called on the issues relating to protected disclosure and to the reason for dismissal. B succeeded in his case. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) declined to allow the employer’s appeal on the basis that B had a reasonable belief in the matters disclosed and that it was reasonable to disclose them to the NHI.
The employer appealed to the Court of Appeal, which held that the employment tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear the claim depended on B establishing that he had made a protected disclosure and that was the reason or principal reason for any detriment. The critical issue was whether all the requirements of the protected disclosure provisions had been satisfied on the evidence. It was essential for the tribunal to hear from witnesses on the issues of the employee’s good faith and the reasonableness of external disclosure, as well as the reason for his dismissal. As no evidence on these points had been allowed by the tribunal, the employer’s appeal was allowed and the case went back to the tribunal for a rehearing with full evidence to cover the employee’s motives, enabling a decision to be made on the question of B’s good faith and his reasonable belief in the matters giving rise to the disclosures.
Street v Derbyshire Unemployed Workers’ Centre  IRLR 687, CA
S was employed as an administrator at DUWC, which was funded by various bodies including Chesterfield Borough Council (CBC). DUWC was managed by a non-employed, elected committee. S wrote to CBC’s treasurer making various complaints about H, the centre’s employed co-ordinator. S later showed a copy of her letter to a member of DUWC’s management committee. H’s conduct was investigated and he was exonerated. DUWC then carried out disciplinary proceedings against S, which resulted in her dismissal for gross misconduct and breach of trust. S broug