header-logo header-logo

Whistleblowing protection: slow progress?

218614
Whistleblowing protection is inching forward with judicial help, writes Charles Pigott—but reform is still needed
  • Recent case law has highlighted scope for the courts to extend the definition of ‘worker’ for whistleblowing purposes by applying human rights principles.
  • However, these cases show the need for wider-reaching reform .

From the outset, it has been recognised that the legal protection for whistleblowers in the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996), Pt IVA should not be confined to employees and ‘limb (b)’ workers (ie, non-employee workers who have entered into a contract to perform work personally (ERA 1996, s 230(3)(b)).

ERA 1996, s 43K extends the standard ERA 1996 definition of ‘worker’ for whistleblowing purposes. Over the years, successive amendments have created a complex web of provisions, but the core elements address the position of agency workers and that of individual contractors, providing their services are part of a business rather than in a personal capacity (s 43K(1)(a) and (b)). There are also provisions protecting certain categories of work experience students,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll