Mr R Barton v Royal Borough of Greewich
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Serota |
| Neutral Citation | UKEAT/0041/14/DXA |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal,Victimisation Discrimination,Unfair Dismissal - Automatically unfair reasons,Victimisation Discrimination - Whistleblowing,Not landmark |
| Date | 01 May 2015 |
| Published date | 31 May 2017 |
Copyright 2015
Appeal No. UKEAT/0041/14/DXA
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
FLEETBANK HOUSE, 2-6 SALISBURY SQUARE, LONDON EC4Y 8AE
At the Tribunal
On 10 November 2014 and 22 January 2015
Judgment handed down on 1 May 2015
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE SEROTA QC
(SITTING ALONE)
MR R BARTON APPELLANT
ROYAL BOROUGH OF GREENWICH RESPONDENT
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
UKEAT/0041/14/DXA
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant MR TONY PULLEN
(Consultant)
AJP Employment Law Ltd
20 Claverdale Road
London
SW2 2DP
For the Respondent MS SHERYN OMERI
(of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Royal Borough of Greenwich
Legal Services
4th Floor The Woolwich Centre
35 Wellington Street
Woolwich
London
SE18 6HQ
UKEAT/0041/14/DXA
SUMMARY
VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION - Whistleblowing
UNFAIR DISMISSAL - Automatically unfair reasons
The Claimant was an employee of the Respondent and had at one time been an elected shop
steward and health and safety representative.
He received a concern from a work colleague that his line manager had emailed a large number
of documents to her home (“hundreds”) which he believed contained confidential or personal
data about himself and her personal email was not part of a secure system nor encrypted. The
Claimant considered that this was a significant breach of the Data Protection Act 1998.
He did not report the matter to his line managers but reported his concerns to the Information
Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”), and thereafter to his line managers. Having consulted the ICO
website, he telephoned the advice line to clarify his understanding of the Data Protection Act.
The information he provided was wholly inaccurate. The manager had emailed 11 documents
to her home email which was password protected. None of the documents were regarded as
inappropriate for her to have sent.
Having established that the Claimant had referred the matter to the ICO without first referring it
to his line manager, the Claimant was informed that he should have referred the matter to his
line managers before raising concerns with the ICO, and was specifically instructed not to
contact the ICO or other external bodies in relation to the matter without the prior authority of
his line manager. He was told that the Respondent would investigate the concerns promptly, as
it did.
To continue reading
Request your trial