Whistleblowing – Blackbay Ventures Ltd (Chemistree) v Gahir

In the case of Chemistree v Gahir, the EAT had to consider the following in relation to the decisions made at employment tribunal (ET).

Whether or not the claimant had suffered detriment due to the respondent’s alleged failure to act upon the disclosures immediately.

Whether or not the tribunal should have considered each disclosure separately as opposed to them all being rolled up together.

Background

Ms Gahir, was an employee of Chemistree; a trading name of Blackbay Ventures Ltd. Ms Gahir’s role involved making sure that the pharmacy was compliant with statutory requirements and guidance. Her start date was 16th August 2010, and she was dismissed 18 days later on 3rd September 2010. It was claimed that Ms Gahir was dismissed on the grounds of ‘mutual unsuitablity.’ In this short period of time, Ms Gahir raised 17 separate concerns via two emails relating to health and safety and failure to comply with legal obligations. These included statutory and regulatory requirements linked to the storage and dispensing of controlled medicines. These were later claimed to be protected disclosures.

ET

At ET, the tribunal held that the ‘principal,’ reason for Ms Gahir’s dismissal was that she had made a protected disclosure. The tribunal also held that Ms Gahir had suffered detriment as Chemistree had failed to quickly or adequately address her concerns. They agreed that she had to endure the stress of remaining at work in the knowledge that her employer was potentially breaching health and safety and legal obligations.

EAT

Chemistree appealed to the EAT who concluded that Ms Gahir had not suffered detriment. As she had been employed for such a short period of time; they found it difficult to see how she could have suffered such detriment between her dismissal and submission of her emails of complaint. What is of further importance is that the EAT found that there had been no deliberate action or failure to act on behalf of the respondent.
The EAT also concluded that the tribunal should originally have considered each disclosure separately and in detail taking a ‘systematic approach.’

Additional Comment

As highlighted in this case, there is no qualifying period of employment required to bring a claim of automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing. Whilst this case demonstrates that there may be allowance for a short time period for employers to take time to consider whether action is necessary; it is recommended that employers should investigate promptly and thoroughly as well as take specialist advice where concerns are raised regarding health and safety or legal obligations.

Whilst every effort has been made to maintain accuracy throughout this article, Nationwide Employment Lawyers cannot accept responsibility or liability for any errors. This article is intended for guidance purposes  only and does not constitute specialist legal advice. Nationwide Employment Lawyers accept no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any action taken or not taken in relation to this article and recommend that appropriate legal advice be taken in all circumstances.