Bronckaers v Department od Agriculture, Env... (Unfair Dismissal Other)

Factual and Procedural Background

This case concerns a whistleblowing claim brought by the Plaintiff, a Supervisory Veterinary Officer employed by Company A (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs). The Plaintiff alleged that she suffered detriment and was constructively dismissed due to raising protected disclosures about animal welfare and cattle movement recording issues, particularly relating to livestock markets. The Plaintiff resigned citing a last straw event following a series of detrimental acts and omissions by her line manager and other senior officials, which cumulatively breached the implied term of trust and confidence in her employment contract. The Defendant denied that the Plaintiff was dismissed, denied unfair dismissal, and denied that any detriment was suffered on grounds of protected disclosures.

The tribunal heard evidence over four days in February 2020 and held a submissions hearing in June 2021, delayed by Covid-19 related disruptions. This judgment addresses liability only, with remedy to be determined at a later hearing.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Plaintiff made protected disclosures that were reasonably believed to show relevant failures, including breaches of legal obligations by the Defendant's officials.
2. Whether the Plaintiff suffered detriment by acts or deliberate failures to act by the Defendant on grounds of having made protected disclosures.
3. Whether the detriments constituted a course of adverse treatment amounting to a repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, justifying the Plaintiff's resignation (constructive dismissal).
4. If the Plaintiff was dismissed, whether the dismissal was for the principal reason of having made protected disclosures, rendering it automatically unfair.
5. Whether the dismissal was otherwise unfair.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Plaintiff argued she was subjected to a pattern of detriment, including being ignored, excluded, and undermined professionally, primarily by her line manager and senior officials, due to her raising protected disclosures.
• She contended that the Defendant's policy allowing deletion of cattle moves was abused, compromising traceability and increasing disease risk, and that the Defendant's failure to act on this amounted to complicity and breach of legal obligations.
• The Plaintiff claimed constructive dismissal due to a repudiatory breach of contract arising from the detrimental treatment.
• She asserted that the dismissal was automatically unfair as it was principally due to her protected disclosures.

Appellee's Arguments

• The Defendant argued that the Plaintiff resigned voluntarily and was not dismissed.
• They denied that she suffered any detriment related to protected disclosures or that any dismissal occurred on such grounds.
• The Defendant contended that the issues raised were the context of the employment relationship and not the cause of the resignation.
• They maintained that the Department's policy on deletion of moves did not contravene legislation and that powers rather than duties were imposed on the Department.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
London Borough of Harrow v Knight [2003] IRLR 140 EAT	Requirement to analyse mental processes to establish causative link between protected disclosure and detriment.	The tribunal applied this to assess why the Plaintiff was subjected to detriment.
Pinnington v Swansea City Council [2005] EWCA Civ 1135	Four elements for protected disclosures: detriment, act or failure, employer, and ground of disclosure.	Used to evaluate whether the Plaintiff suffered detriment on grounds of protected disclosures.
Deer v University of Oxford [2015] IRLR 481 CA	Reaffirmed definition of detriment as per Shamoon.	Supported tribunal's objective assessment of detriment.
Derbyshire and Others v St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council [2007] ICR 841 HL	An unjustified sense of grievance does not amount to detriment.	Guided tribunal in distinguishing reasonable detriment from grievance.
Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] ICR 337 HL	Leading authority on the definition of detriment.	Provided the test for assessing detriment objectively from the claimant's perspective.
De Souza v Automobile Association [1986] ICR 514 CA	Failure to act where power exists can amount to detriment.	Supported finding that deliberate omissions by the Defendant could constitute detriment.
Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board v Ferguson [2013] ICR 1108 EAT	Failure to act where power exists can amount to detriment.	Applied to assess Defendant's omissions.
Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v B & C (UKEAT) 0306/15/RN EAT	Protected disclosures can be a material influence without precise identification of which disclosure caused which detriment.	Supported tribunal's approach to causation.
Igen v Wong [2005] EWCA Civ 142	Material influence defined as more than trivial influence in burden of proof.	Guided tribunal's standard for causation.
Villalba v Merrill Lynch & Co Inc [2007] ICR 469 EAT	General principles in whistleblowing and detriment claims.	Referenced in legal analysis.
Nagarajan v London Regional Transport [1999] IRLR 572 HL	“On grounds of” does not require conscious motivation; focuses on reason for treatment.	Applied to assess reason why Plaintiff suffered detriment.
El-Megrisi v Azad University in Oxford (UKEAT) 0448/08 EAT	Cumulative impact of protected disclosures as principal reason for dismissal.	Used to evaluate constructive dismissal claim.
Fecitt v NHS Manchester [2011] ICR 476 EAT and [2011] EWCA Civ 1190	Protected disclosure materially influences employer's treatment for detriment claims.	Supported tribunal's causation analysis.
Local Government Yorkshire and Humber v Shah (UKEAT) 0587/11	Relevant to whistleblowing claims.	Referenced in submissions.
Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust v Wyeth (UKEAT) 0061/15	Relevant to whistleblowing claims.	Referenced in submissions.
Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp [1978] QB 761 CA	Four key elements of constructive dismissal.	Applied to assess Plaintiff’s constructive dismissal claim.
Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA (In Liquidation) [1998] AC 20 HL	Implied term of trust and confidence in employment contracts.	Applied to determine breach of contract by Defendant.
British Aircraft Corporation Ltd v Austin [1978] IRLR 332 EAT	Relevant to employment contract and dismissal.	Referenced in analysis.
Palmanor Ltd t/a Chaplins Night Club v Cedron [1978] IRLR 303 EAT	Relevant to employment disputes.	Referenced in analysis.
The Post Office v Roberts [1980] IRLR 347 EAT	Relevant to employment disputes.	Referenced in analysis.
Wigan Borough Council v Davies [1979] IRLR 127 EAT	Relevant to employment disputes.	Referenced in analysis.
Bracebridge Engineering Ltd v Darby [1990] IRLR 3 EAT	Relevant to employment disputes.	Referenced in analysis.
Royal Mail Ltd v Jhuti [2020] ICR 731 UKSC	Tribunal must look behind inaccuracies to establish real reason for dismissal or detriment.	Applied to assess Defendant’s explanations.
Omilaju v Waltham Forest LBC [2004] EWCA Civ 1493	Objective test for breach of trust and confidence in constructive dismissal.	Applied to assess Plaintiff’s resignation.
Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed [2017] IRLR 837	Public interest test in whistleblowing claims.	Not directly relevant as public interest was conceded.
Jesudason v Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust [2020] IRLR 374 CA	Focus on reason why detrimental act occurred in whistleblowing claims.	Applied in causation analysis.
Bolton School v Evans [2006] EWCA Civ 1653	Focus on reason for dismissal.	Referenced in dismissal analysis.
Pedersen v London Borough of Camden [1981] IRLR 173 CA	Relevant to whistleblowing claims.	Referenced in submissions.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The tribunal carefully examined the evidence, including extensive witness testimony and documentary material, focusing on the period from February 2017 to February 2018. The Plaintiff was found to have made a series of protected disclosures related to serious concerns about animal welfare at livestock markets and the deletion of cattle moves from the recording system, which compromised traceability and increased disease risk.

The Defendant conceded that the disclosures regarding third parties (livestock markets, farmers, dealers) were protected but contested that disclosures about Departmental officials were protected. The tribunal found that the Plaintiff failed to prove that she reasonably believed Departmental officials were complicit in wrongdoing, rejecting the complicity argument.

The tribunal found credible the Plaintiff's evidence of a pattern of detrimental treatment by her line manager and senior officials, including ignoring emails, excluding her from meetings, undermining her professional opinion, redrafting her reports to dilute their seriousness, and an intimidating encounter with a senior official. The Defendant's explanations for this conduct were rejected as unsatisfactory or contradictory.

The tribunal found that the cumulative detrimental acts and omissions amounted to a repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, justifying the Plaintiff's resignation (constructive dismissal). The last straw event was identified as the Defendant's failure to respond adequately to the Plaintiff's final reports and an untrue statement by her line manager attempting to discredit her.

On causation, the tribunal concluded that the protected disclosures were a material influence on the detrimental treatment and the principal reason for the dismissal, rendering it automatically unfair. No alternative fair reason for dismissal was advanced by the Defendant.

Holding and Implications

The tribunal held that:

• The Plaintiff was subjected to detriment on grounds of having raised protected disclosures.
• The Plaintiff was dismissed and that dismissal was unfair.
• The dismissal was automatically unfair as the principal reason was the Plaintiff having raised protected disclosures.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Plaintiff's claims of whistleblowing detriment, constructive dismissal, and unfair dismissal succeed on liability. The tribunal will reconvene for a remedy hearing to determine compensation or other relief. No new legal precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles to the facts.