The claimant in this case was a sales team manager without the necessary qualifying period to claim 'normal' unfair dismissal. He claimed he had been automatically unfairly dismissed for a reason related to his making a protected disclosure.

He wrote to his employer via emails on three occasions about health and safety concerns regarding his team's requirement to drive to customers during the heavy snows of 2010, although the initial concern seemed to be that employees who could not get through the bad roads might not be paid. He felt it would be safer and more productive for the team to base themselves at the office and make phone calls.

Taken individually, the tribunal found the emails did not amount to a protected disclosure. However, taken together, they highlighted dangers that the health and safety of an individual has been, is being, or is likely to be endangered and therefore could amount to a protected disclosure, allowing the employee to claim unfair dismissal without the normal qualifying period of continuous service. The EAT agreed. http://bit.ly/1d4uiVm

Practical lessons from this decision

Whistleblowing is an extremely complex area of law – with particularly drastic consequences for employers. Always take legal advice if whistleblowing allegations are involved.