Morgan v Royal Mencap Society: Protected disclosure in public interest

To continue reading please register or login to your OHW+ account.

In Morgan v Royal Mencap Society, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that an employment tribunal was wrong to strike out a whistleblowing claim on the basis that an employee's complaint about cramped working conditions was not “in the public interest”. Naomi Clarkson explains this recent employment case. Morgan v Royal Mencap Society

Background

Whistleblowers are protected against dismissal and detriment on the basis of making a qualifying "protected disclosure". This case centres on the issue of the "public interest" provisions of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, which were introduced into the legislation in June 2013. The "public interest" test requires the worker to reasonably believe that their disclosure on one of the relevant matters is made in the public interest. The purpose of these changes was to reverse the findings of previous case law that had extended whistleblowing protection to workers seeking to make disclosures in their own personal interest, effectively covering a breach of a whistleblower's own contract of employment. The reforms sparked controversy, with some workers' organisations claiming that the public interest requirement placed too high a burden on workers and that they may be deterred from seeking the protection of the legislation. This case is the latest in a number of recent decisions to consider the meaning of "in the public interest".

Facts

Ms Morgan claimed that she had been subjected to detriments because of her public interest disclosures and complaints about health and safety. The disclosures relied on were complaints that Ms M