And speaking of the need for cool brings me to the case of The Laurels Family Assessment Ltd v Miss M Y Kay, in which an employer’s response to a whistleblower was anything but.

Miss Kay worked for The Laurels Family Assessment Ltd, a company providing support services to vulnerable families subject to care proceedings and OFSTED regulation. She began in October 2021 as a Family Support Worker, initially on a bank basis before becoming an employee in March 2022. Her role involved supporting vulnerable parents and children, including supervising medication administration. During the summer of 2022, Miss Kay became concerned about another Family Support Worker, referred to in the judgment as “SW”. She believed he had a “chaotic and partying lifestyle”, used recreational drugs and, on one occasion, appeared to attend work while suffering from a “comedown” after drug use. Miss Kay considered this inappropriate given the vulnerable families being supported by the organisation.

According to Miss Kay, she first raised these concerns privately with the deputy manager on 22 August 2022 after discovering that SW was being re-employed by the company. She later repeated the concerns to an independent visitor, known as AC, during a routine OFSTED-related visit on 13 September 2022. However, shortly after the meeting with AC, Miss Kay was called into a meeting with the deputy manager, and a director and was summarily dismissed. The Company stated that the dismissal related to medication-recording failures, leaving the premises without authorisation and attending an unauthorised meeting.

Miss Kay then took The Laurels Family Assessment Ltd to the Employment Tribunal for automatic unfair dismissal and detriment on the grounds of whistleblowing.

The Employment Tribunal, by majority, found in Miss Kay’s favour. The tribunal accepted her evidence that she had genuinely raised safeguarding concerns about SW’s alleged recreational drug use and his suitability to work with vulnerable families. The tribunal concluded that the disclosures amounted to protected disclosures under the Employment Rights Act 1996 because Miss Kay reasonably believed the information tended to show a danger to health and safety. It also accepted that the concerns were raised both internally to management and externally to AC, who had responsibilities connected to OFSTED oversight.

Importantly, the tribunal rejected the employer’s explanation for dismissal. It found that earlier concerns regarding medication recording had already been treated as a training issue and that there was insufficient evidence supporting allegations that Miss Kay had left residents vulnerable or attended an unauthorised meeting.

The tribunal was particularly influenced by the timing of events. Miss Kay was dismissed on the same day she repeated her safeguarding concerns to AC, after a short meeting during which she was not given a proper opportunity to respond to allegations against her. The tribunal therefore held that the real reason for dismissal was the protected disclosures themselves. It also found that the employer’s refusal properly to deal with Miss Kay’s appeal amounted to a further detriment linked to whistleblowing.

The company then appealed to the EAT, arguing that the tribunal’s conclusions were perverse and unsupported by the evidence. It also argued that the tribunal failed properly to consider the alleged misconduct issues relied upon in the dismissal letter.

The EAT dismissed the appeal in full. The judge confirmed that the threshold for overturning factual findings on perversity grounds is extremely high and that appellate courts should not interfere simply because another interpretation of the evidence is possible. The EAT found there was sufficient evidence supporting the tribunal majority’s conclusions. Miss Kay had given direct evidence regarding the disclosures she made, and the tribunal had carefully analysed the credibility of the witnesses and surrounding circumstances.

The EAT also agreed that the tribunal had properly considered, and rejected the employer’s stated reasons for dismissal. The majority had been entitled to conclude that the protected disclosures were “uppermost” in management’s mind when dismissing Miss Kay. As a result, the employer’s appeal was dismissed and the finding of automatic unfair dismissal remained in place. Miss Kay was awarded £6,694 in compensation.

This case is a useful reminder that employers should treat whistleblowing concerns carefully, especially where safeguarding or health and safety issues are involved. A rushed dismissal shortly after an employee raises concerns is likely to attract scrutiny from a tribunal, particularly where procedures are inconsistent or poorly documented. Employers should ensure concerns are investigated properly, disciplinary allegations are evidence-based and employees are given a fair opportunity to respond before decisions are made.