web updater summary
27 August 2008
|
|
emplaw.co.uk employment law web updater summary 27 August 2008 |
|
Summary Information : Muchesa v Central & Cecil Housing Care Support Ltd - correct approach to establishing whether a whistle-blower "reasonably believed" that their allegations were true - EAT 22.8.08 Miss Muchesa was employed by CCHCS at a care home. She made allegations to the daughter of a resident, the police and social services about what she said were unsatisfactory standards at the home. CCHCS suspended her for misconduct and in due course dismissed her. Meanwhile, she made further allegations to the Council for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) which inspected the home and found the allegations were unfounded. Miss Muchesa made various claims to an employment tribunal. The claim which is relevant for this note was that she had been unfairly dismissed because (i) her dismissal was for making a protected disclosure ("whistleblowing") and (ii) CCHS had failed to comply with the statutory dismissal and disciplinary procedures. Although she won on automatic procedural unfairness she was awarded no compensation beyond a basic award. The tribunal rejected her whistle-blowing claims completely. Miss Muchesa appealed. The EAT concluded (as had the original tribunal) that the disclosures were not to persons described in 43G which required that the disclosures be made in good faith and that Miss Muchesa "reasonably believed" the information disclosed to be "substantially true". The EAT said that employment tribunal made no error of law when it found this not to be the case. "They were entitled...to consider whether the complaints were in fact true and to regard their view of their truth or untruth as an important tool to the resolution of the issue before them of reasonable belief. The matters of fact of which Miss Muchesa had complained were matters of which she claimed to have direct personal knowledge...the truth of her allegations would naturally appear to be of greater weight than if this was a case of second-hand information." The tribunal was entitled to ask itself " whether the actions or inactions of Miss Muchesa pointed not only towards the truth of her complaints but also to whether she genuinely believed in that truth. They determined that her actions and inactions were strongly inconsistent with such a belief i.e. she had not behaved in the manner in which she would have behaved had she reasonably believed in the truth of the complaints and was motivated by a genuine desire to protect the residents..." |