Last month the EAT looked at this issue in Cavendish Munro v Geduld when considering the exact meaning of 'disclose information'. In his solicitor’s letter to his employer, a firm of insurance brokers, Mr Geguld made allegations about the way he had been treated, in particular as a minority shareholder. His employer response to this was to dismiss him.
The solicitor’s letter was unspecific when it came to facts or information and only contained such phrases as “ There are a number of issues…” ; “…our client’s position is fully reserved regarding his rights and claims…”; “….will take all steps that are necessary to protect his position”; “… threats and circumstances surrounding the position our client finds himself in with the remaining two shareholders which has led to unfair prejudice” but nothing like “this happened on such and such a day and is unlawful”.
Some might say the letter was merely full of veiled threats; or, even, just so much hot air. That said, the employer might well have been able to guess at what these assertions were actually referring to.
However, as Mr Geguld had worked for the employer for less than one year he could not claim straightforward unfair dismissal. So, he made a claim on the basis that he had made a protected disclosure and the dismissal was automatically unfair because he was dismissed because of that.
The EAT had to decide if the solicitor’s letter amounted to a ' protected disclosure', in which case Mr Geguld could sue, or simply contained allegations, in which case he could not therefore what the difference is between 'disclosing information' and mere 'communication'.
In this case the EAT decided that Mr Geguld's solicitor's letter only contained a statement of his position; it did not disclose any information which was brought to the attention of an appropriate person (whether or not that person already knew the information disclosed). It did not therefore constitute a 'protected disclosure' for the purposes of the Act.
So, if you are going to whistleblow make sure you spell it out rather than put the allegation in roundabout terms. Employers on the other hand should probably be slow to react as the employers did in this case, albeit that they could be said to have got away with it. A more prudent course may have been to try to discuss the problem or invite the employee to do so.
