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

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.