Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 02 March 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] UKEAT 0516_06_0203 |
| Date | 02 March 2007 |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
Employment Appeal Tribunal Published April 9, 2007
Before Judge Peter Clark, Mr K. Edmondson and Mr J. Shrigley
If an employee claiming she was unfairly dismissed for whistleblowing raised some doubt as to the employers' reason for dismissal and the employers had not proved their reason, if they had not disproved the protected disclosure reason, then the dismissal was for the reason advanced by the claimant.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal so held when remitting an unfair dismissal claim by Dr R. Kuzel against her employers, Roche Products Ltd, to an employment tribunal sitting at Bedford.
By a decision sent to the parties on July 18, 2006, the tribunal had upheld her claim of unfair dismissal under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 but had held that the reason for the dismissal was not that she had made a protected disclosure.
Miss Ruth Downing for the claimant; Mr John Bowers, QC, for the employers.
JUDGE PETER CLARK, giving the reserved judgment of the tribunal, said that the financial significance of the appeal was that whereas ordinary section 98 unfair dismissal was subject to the statutory cap, dismissal for whistleblowing was not.
The tribunal had rejected both the employers' and claimant's reason for dismissal and found that it was due to a loss of temper by a senior executive.
Where an employee raised the whistleblowing issue of section 103A of the 1996 Act, as inserted by sections 5 and 18(2) of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, the position was governed by the Court of Appeal decision in Maund v Penwith District CouncilICR ((1984) ICR 143, 149) where Lord Justice Griffiths gave guidance on how to approach conflicting reasons for dismissal.
Assuming the claimant had raised a prima facie case of an inadmissible reason, the onus rested on the employer to prove his reason for dismissal.
But what happened where the employer failed to establish the reason he advanced? Did it mean the tribunal was bound to conclude that the reason was that advanced by the claimant?
Miss Downing submitted that if the tribunal rejected the employers' reason it should apply the reverse burden of proof as in discrimination cases: see Igen Ltd v WongICR ((2005) ICR 931).
There was a danger in taking a broad view that because the protection afforded to whistleblowers under section 103A was protection against a form of discrimination, the statutory...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dr Kevin Beatt v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust
... ... 41) ... 31 In Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 380 , [2008] ICR 799 , this Court considered the operation ... ...
-
Royal Mail Ltd v Kamaljeet Jhuti
...(where it occurs) in the same way, it is not safe always to read across from one scheme to the other. In Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 380, [2008] ICR 799, which involved a claim of whistleblower dismissal, Mummery LJ said, at para. 48 (p. 809 D–E): "Unfair dismissal and disc......
-
Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd
...“whistleblower's” claim under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, as amended (the 1996 Act). The EAT judgment is reported at [2007] ICR 945. 7 Although Dr Kuzel persuaded the EAT that there was an error of law in the ET decision, she appeals to this court because she is dissatis......
-
Drummond vs Health Shield Friendly
...on the basis that the concept of “good faith” added an important element which protected employers. 74. In Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd [2007] IRLR 309, EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal in an appeal which focused on the burden of proof in such cases suggested the following approach – (1) H......