Esta es la versión HTML de un fichero adjunto a una solicitud de acceso a la información 'Zugang zu Dokumenten iZm. Whistleblowing u. Whistleblowerschutz'.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Providing an Alternative to Silence: 
 
Towards Greater Protection and Support for 
Whistleblowers in the EU 
 
 

COUNTRY REPORT: UNITED KINGDOM 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


 
 
 
 
 
This report belongs to a series of 27 national reports that assess the adequacy of whistleblower protection 
laws of all member states of the European Union. Whistleblowing in Europe: Legal Protection for 
Whistleblowers in the EU,
 published by Transparency International in November 2013, compiles the 
findings from these national reports. It can be accessed at www.transparency.org. 
 
All national reports are available upon request at xx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Responsibility for all information contained in the report lies with the author. Views expressed in the report 
are the author’s own, and may not necessarily reflect the views of the organisation for which they work. 
Transparency International cannot accept responsibility for any use that may be made of the information 
contained therein. 
The project has been funded with support from the European Commission. The sole responsibility lies with 
the author and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use that may be made of the 
information contained therein. 
 
 
 
 
With financial support from the Prevention of and Fight against Crime Programme of the European Union. 
European Commission – Directorate-General Home Affairs 
 


 
 
 
 
Public Concern at Work:  UK submission to Transparency 
International whistleblower protection research project. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
The UK’s Public Interest Disclosure Act, 1998 offers strong and comprehensive protection for 
workplace whistleblowing.  It is a vital tool in the fight against corruption as it covers a wide range of 
wrongdoing – as explained below – but suffers from a lack of promotion and support by the UK 
government.  
Rather than see the legislation as key in the fight against corruption the UK government views the 
legislation as additional red tape for UK businesses.  It is for this reason that there is currently a 
move to amend PIDA creating an additional barrier for those wishing to seek protection from the 
legislation.   It is because of this attitude to the legislation that the real value of the Act has yet to be 
realised, and we conclude that PIDA requires a thorough review and public consultation.  This paper 
explains how the legislation works in practice as well as charting the history behind the key 
promoters of the UK legislation, the charity, Public Concern at Work (PCaW). 
Overview 
Whistleblowing protection in the UK is concentrated in a single piece of employment legislation - the 
Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA). The case law shows that it will protect the reasonable and 
honest whistleblower who has raised an issue of genuine public interest. It has also influenced the 
development of laws in other jurisdictions and the 2009 Report of the Parliamentary Assembly of the 
Council of Europe states: ‘The UK indeed appears to be the model in this field of legislation.’  
However, like any other law, PIDA is in need of review to make sure that it is in keeping with the 
working environment. Experience has identified some weaknesses in the Act and in its 
interpretation. Many of the problems that have arisen are due to judicial interpretation and may 
have arisen as a result of there not being a specialist tribunal for whistleblowing claims and/ or the 
failure of Government to champion whistleblowing protection.  
THE LAW 
Background 
A series of public inquiries into disasters (for example, the Clapham rail disaster, the Piper Alpha 
offshore oil rig explosion and the collapse of the BCCI banking group) found a pattern emerging that 
workers had known about the risk or wrongdoing that had contributed to the disaster and were 
either too scared to speak up about it or - worse still - they had spoken up and they were ignored. 
The Zeebrugge ferry sinking (where 189 lives were lost) was notable as staff had raised concerns on 
five occasions previously but were ignored.  

 
- 2 - 
  
The lack of incentive for staff to raise concerns was recognised by a small civil society organisation, 
Public Concern at Work (PCaW), set up in 1993.  PCaW campaigned for the protection for 
whistleblowers, identifying that workers need to have protection for raising concerns with their 
employers, regulators and also more widely in order for the public interest and society to be 
protected, and disasters prevented1.  
The law for which PCaW campaigned has its roots in the law of confidence. In English common law 
there was a long-standing principle that there could be ‘no confidence in iniquity’ which means that 
employers who were engaged in wrongdoing could not hide behind confidentiality clauses and 
prevent workers from speaking up about wrongdoing or malpractice. Enshrining this principle in 
employment law was seen as an important step in the protection for whistleblowers: first of all it 
had a declaratory effect, so employers realise that it is in their interests to deal with whistleblowers 
and their concerns effectively; and secondly it provided reassurance to workers that they should not 
be victimised or dismissed for raising a concern about wrongdoing or malpractice - and if they are, 
then they will be compensated. 
PCaW campaigned for a new law, and after a process of debate and consultation that lasted 4 years 
they devised a draft law and persuaded an MP to put it forward - as the Public Interest Disclosure 
Bill. After an initial failed attempt to pass the bill, it was proposed as a Private Member’s Bill by a 
Conservative MP and supported by the then Labour Government. Unusually PIDA enjoyed cross-
party, business and trade union support. It recognises that workers are in a unique position as they 
are often the first to know about wrongdoing or malpractice and vulnerable in that they can be 
deprived of their livelihood if they try to bring suspected wrongdoing or malpractice to their 
employer’s attention or that of the appropriate authorities. 
Content  
PIDA proceeds mainly by amendment of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Its main provisions are 
discussed below. 
It covers all workers across all sectors - private, public and voluntary. It attracts the ordinary 
meaning of ‘worker’ under the Employment Rights Act (section 230 (3)) and extends that (in section 
43 K).   Its broad application includes UK workers based overseas, although it does not cover the 
genuinely self-employed or volunteers. Those working in the armed forces or intelligence services 
are not protected by the Act. (This absolute exclusion means that a worker in one of these 
organisations will not be protected from victimisation even where he raises a concern internally that 
a manager accepted a bribe to award a cleaning contract). 
It covers disclosures about a wide range of acts that might constitute wrongdoing, including dangers 
to health and safety or the environment, criminal offences, miscarriages of justice, and a breach of a 
legal obligation, or attempts to conceal any of these matters (section 43B). 
Where the disclosure of the information is itself a crime (e.g. if it is held to breach the Official Secrets 
Act), it does not qualify for protection (section 43B (3)). It should be noted that raising such a 
concern formally within Government or with the Civil Service Commissioners would not constitute a 
breach of (or disclosure under) the Official Secrets Act and so would qualify for protection in any 
event. Workers (apart from those working in the armed forces or intelligence services who are not 
protected by the Act) will only lose the protection of PIDA if they have been convicted of the offence 
of breaching the Official Secrets Act or an Employment Tribunal is satisfied, to a high standard of 
proof approaching the criminal standard, that the offence was committed. It should be noted that 
                                                            
1 See below Annex C for more on the history of PCaW 
© PCaW 2012 

 
- 3 - 
  
the current provisions of the Official Secrets Act (from 1989) cover only a limited range of secret 
material.  
PIDA establishes a tiered disclosure regime, which gives virtually automatic protection to those who 
raise a concern internally with their employer (section 43C), as individuals need only show that they 
have a reasonable belief tending to showing one of the categories of wrongdoing set out under the 
Act (‘a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing’).  They also need to comply with the broad requirement, 
which applies generally to disclosures under PIDA (other than those to legal advisers- section 43D- 
and designed to enable whistleblowers to seek legal advice) that concerns should be raised in good 
faith. 
Protection is also readily available for disclosures to regulators that are prescribed under PIDA2 (such 
as the Financial Services Authority, the Health and Safety Executive or the Care Quality Commission). 
Individuals need to show that they have a reasonable belief and that their concern is substantially 
true in order to gain protection (as well as showing that they are acting in good faith) (section 43F).  
In certain circumstances, wider disclosures (for example to an MP or the media) may also be 
protected (section 43G). The test for wider disclosures performs an important balancing act between 
the public interest and the need for confidentiality in certain circumstances. For a disclosure to be 
protected individuals must show that they have a reasonable belief that their concern is 
substantially true, to be acting in good faith, that they are not raising a concern for personal gain, 
that they have a valid cause to go wider and that their actions (in making the disclosure more 
widely) are reasonable in all the circumstances.  
Where concerns are exceptionally serious (section 43H) individuals have a lower hurdle than that of 
section 43G (the ‘wider disclosure’). PIDA will protect those who go straight to the media if 
appropriate, as was confirmed in Collins v National Trust (2005). In this case, the Employment 
Tribunal ruled that, in exceptionally serious circumstances, a disclosure to a local newspaper of a 
confidential report about dangers on a public beach was protected.  However under 43H there is, as 
in 43G, the provision that the whistleblower will not be protected if the purpose of the disclosure 
was personal gain. This is aimed primarily at cheque book journalism. It covers not only payments of 
money, but benefits in kind. It would also catch a situation where the benefit did not go directly to 
the worker but to a member of his family, provided that its purpose was personal gain. However, 
this provision does not cover any reward payable by or under any enactment (section 43L(2)), such 
as a payment made by Customs and Excise. 
PIDA makes it clear that any attempt to gag a whistleblower from raising a genuine concern about 
wrongdoing – which may be included in an employment contract or compromise agreement – is void 
in law (section 43J). 
Caselaw has established that an individual does not have to be right about the substance of his 
concern, provided he is reasonable (Babula v Waltham Forest College (2006)). However it also 
makes it clear that an individual should be careful to avoid acting like a private detective and step 
over the line of what is considered to be appropriate conduct in attempting to prove he is right 
(Bolton v Evans (2006)). 
There is no central organisation for the investigation of retaliation. A worker may bring a claim for 
unfair dismissal or victimisation within 3 months of their dismissal (section 103A) or the last 
detriment they have suffered (section 48) to an employment tribunal. The employment tribunal 
                                                            
2 A full list of the regulators that are prescribed under PIDA can be found here: http://www.pcaw.org.uk/law  
© PCaW 2012 

 
- 4 - 
  
system in the UK is designed so that cases can be taken to them relatively quickly and easily.  (If 
claims had to be made to civil courts in the UK they would take much longer and be so costly as to 
deter claimants).  However, due to recent cuts in the tribunal services in the UK, there are concerns 
that whistleblowing cases due to their complexity are taking longer. Unlike ordinary unfair dismissal 
claims there is no cap in the compensation and the highest single settlement is believed to be £5.2 
m. (Backs & List v Chesterton Plc (2004)). Awards have included payments for aggravated damages 
and injury to feelings.  
Employment tribunals were initially conceived as a forum where employers and workers could 
resolve disputes without the need for lawyers. In recent times, employment law in the UK has 
become more complicated and there is an increasing number of lawyers and consultants providing 
advice and representation (for a fee). Employment tribunals can be extremely expensive for 
individuals to pursue and there is no legal aid provided to individuals. Unlike civil courts there is no 
requirement that the losing party pays the costs of the winning party. However, parties may apply 
for costs up to a maximum of £10,000 where the other side has behaved unreasonably. The UK 
Government will be introducing fees in the employment tribunal service (by April 2013), and it has 
announced that PIDA claims will be subject to a £1,200 fee, which could be a barrier to a 
whistleblower who has just lost his or her job. 
PIDA enables whistleblowers to apply for interim relief (section 128) allowing the claimant to ask for 
reinstatement of their job. 
In victimisation or detriment claims (section 47B) under PIDA, the Court of Appeal ruled that the 
burden of proof will be if the disclosure by the employee materially influences (in the sense of being 
more than a trivial influence) the employer's treatment of the whistleblower (NHS Manchester v 
Fecitt & Others
).  This decision changed the burden of proof in such claims, which used to be that 
the employer had to show that its treatment of the worker was "in no sense whatsoever", due to the 
whistleblowing. For unfair dismissal claims under PIDA, the dismissal is automatically unfair and the 
burden of proof is on the employer to show that they have not dismissed the individual for 
whistleblowing. 
ISSUES FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION 
The Public Interest 
There has been considerable debate over whether there should be a ‘public interest’ test in PIDA. 
The issue first arose in the case of Parkins v Sodhexo in 2001 in which the Employment Tribunal 
stated during an interim application that in PIDA reference to a breach of a legal obligation was to be 
interpreted widely. The case included a complaint by an individual of a breach of his employment 
contract. While this means that the scope of the Act is wider than was envisaged during the passage 
of the legislation in Parliament, its application can support individuals with limited employment 
rights. In one case two individuals were protected under PIDA after they were victimised for raising a 
grievance that the company had lured them from good jobs promising wages at a level that was then 
reduced once they were in post (Grierson v Meta Management Services Limited, 2008).  
In May 2012 the UK Government proposed to introduce a public interest test as part of the 
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, whereby a claimant would have to show that they had made 
a protected disclosure in the public interest. PCaW opposes this provision as this is unlikely to 
resolve the Parkins problem and as drafted will be viewed as a barrier for whistleblowers by creating 
confusion as to the definition of the public interest and will discourage early preventative 
disclosures. 
Good faith 
In the early years, decisions under the legislation had assumed that this had the ordinary legal 
© PCaW 2012 

 
- 5 - 
  
meaning of ‘honestly’. The Government stated in one of the largest public inquiries into the heath 
service in the UK - the Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry - that it had intended ‘good faith’ to mean 
‘honestly and not maliciously’. However in Street v Derbyshire Unemployed Workers Centre (2004) 
the Court of Appeal rejected the submission that the phrase meant ‘honestly’. The Court decided 
that PIDA protection cannot be lost unless there is a predominant ulterior motive that is unrelated 
to the purposes of the Act. Concern that the effect of this decision discourages whistleblowers led 
the Shipman Inquiry (into a series of murders by a doctor) to recommend that the good faith test 
should be removed altogether from PIDA as this would “avoid the possibility that concerns will not 
come to light because an individual might lose protection if [his or her] motives can be impugned.” 
As yet this recommendation has not been implemented. 
Relationship with discrimination law 
While there are significant differences between PIDA and discrimination law, the Court of Appeal has 
previously ruled that PIDA cases should, where possible, be approached by the courts like 
discrimination cases (for example, in Melia and Ezias v N. Glamorgan NHS Trust, Court of Appeal, 
(2007)). The Court of Appeal ruled in Virgo v Fidelis (2004) that awards for injury to feelings in PIDA 
claims are to be assessed in the same way as for other forms of discrimination.   
The Court of Appeal also held that even if a tribunal did not accept an employer’s reason for 
dismissing a claimant, it did not need to accept the reason put forward by the claimant (Kuzel v 
Roche
, 2008). The Court of Appeal rejected the contention that the legal burden was on the claimant 
to prove that the protected disclosure was the reason for the dismissal: they merely had to advance 
evidence of it. The Court also held that to transplant the operation of the burden of proof from 
discrimination law would complicate rather than clarify the issue, as discrimination law and unfair 
dismissal law are different causes of action. 
PRACTICE 
Whistleblowing arrangements 
While PIDA does not impose a specific duty on organisations to implement arrangements for staff to 
raise concerns safely and responsibly, in terms of providing protection against unjustified treatment 
or retaliation, there are a number of strong policy and legal reasons for public and private bodies in 
the UK to do so and some of these are listed below.  Whistleblowing arrangements are also 
important because no matter what the law says, real protection starts with good practice in the 
workplace.    
1.  Under PIDA, an employment tribunal will look to see if an employer had whistleblowing 
arrangements in place that a worker could or should have used when determining whether a 
wider disclosure, to the media for instance, was reasonable.  
 
2.  The independent Committee on Standards in Public Life strongly recommended in its 2nd, 4th 
and 10th reports that all public bodies, including all government departments, local 
authorities, Non-Departmental Public Bodies, universities, and National Health Service 
organisations should implement arrangements for staff to raise concerns internally and 
externally, and to seek independent advice.  In its 4th Report, the Committee set out the six 
essential elements of all good whistleblowing arrangements (reproduced below) and in its 
10th report the Committee emphasised the importance of leadership and said all public 
bodies should reiterate their commitment to the effective implementation of PIDA.   
 
3.  The UK Corporate Governance Code (C.3.4) states for companies listed on the London Stock 
Exchange it is a matter for the Board, and specifically the Audit Committee, to ensure that 
arrangements are in place for staff to raise concerns in confidence about possible financial 
© PCaW 2012 

 
- 6 - 
  
and other improprieties, and for such concerns to be proportionately and independently 
investigated and followed-up.  
 
4.  The Bribery Act 2010 (section 7) creates a new form of corporate liability for failing to 
prevent bribery and makes it clear that implementing and promoting internal 
whistleblowing arrangements – which include access to advice – is part of a legitimate 
defence (Ministry of Justice, Guidance to the section 9, of the Bribery Act, 2011). 
The declaratory effect of a law that protects those who blow the whistle in the public interest is 
important.  However, real protection for workers comes from employers encouraging their staff to 
speak up about a concern, reassuring them that it is safe to do so and that there are safe external 
routes, responding effectively and proportionately to the concern, and acting swiftly to protect the 
reasonable and honest whistleblower from any reprisal.  
The Committee on Standards in Public life identified the key elements of good whistleblowing 
arrangements3: 
  provides examples distinguishing whistleblowing from grievances 
  gives staff the option to raise a whistleblowing concern outside line management 
  provides access to an independent helpline offering confidential advice 
  offers staff a right to confidentiality when raising a concern 
  explains when and how a concern maybe safely raised outside the organisation (e.g. with a 
regulator) 
  provides that it is a disciplinary matter (a) to victimise a bona fide whistleblower, and (b) for 
someone to maliciously make a false allegation 
There are resources available to enlightened employers who want to implement robust internal 
arrangements, and in particular, the British Standards Institution’s 1998 Code of Practice of 
Whistleblowing Arrangements, is available for free4.      
Independent Advice 
The advice service offered by PCaW has an important role in practice. It offers free, confidential 
advice for workers across all sectors who wish to raise a whistleblowing concern and are unsure 
whether or how to do it. All advisors have legal training and the advice given is covered by legal 
professional privilege. This means that any discussions are not revealed without the whistleblower’s 
express consent. They help the individual to consider the options available to them, and they can 
raise the concern on the individual’s behalf if asked to do so. They have dealt with over 22,000 cases 
since 1993, of which approximately 14,000 are whistleblowing cases. The majority of callers have 
raised their concerns with management (approximately 70%). The role of independent and 
confidential advice is essential in empowering potential whistleblowers to speak up and building 
trust and confidence (see below for more on the history and background to the creation of PCaW). 
 
                                                            
3 Committee on Standards in Public Life, Third Report (1996), page 48. 
4 British Standards Institution (2008) Whistleblowing Arrangements Code of Practice, PAS 1998:2008.  Free download 
available from www.pcaw.org.uk/bsi.  
 
© PCaW 2012 

 
- 7 - 
  
ASSESSMENT 
PIDA has been a model for other countries, including South Africa and Japan and most recently 
Ireland, where a draft law based on it is before the Parliament.  PIDA has been praised by the Council 
of Europe because of its comprehensive scope, which provides protection to workers across all 
sectors for raising concerns internally, with regulators and in certain circumstances more widely with 
the media. Through its tiered regime PIDA recognises the various lines of accountability and 
promotes organisations engaging in better risk management. PIDA goes beyond financial 
malpractice and provides broad categories of wrongdoing, encouraging a broader interpretation of 
the public interest. There is no rewards regime, yet people still raise concerns.  
In 2007 a survey by Ernst and Young found that 86% of UK senior executives in multinationals said 
they felt free to report cases of fraud or corruption, against an average of 54% across mainland 
Europe.  
In the UK the regulatory system is sector specific and so there is not a single agency that deals with 
whistleblowing. PIDA recognises the importance of whistleblowers being able to raise concerns with 
regulators, by providing relatively easy protection to those who raise concerns with them. What this 
means in practice is that a whistleblower does not have a high burden of evidence in order to be 
protected for raising a concern with a regulator.  They need to reasonably believe the information is 
substantially true (S43F) and be acting in good faith. A multitude of regulatory bodies across the UK 
are prescribed under PIDA. Given this regulatory approach, it would be difficult to have one agency 
for all sectors - a whistleblowing agency would have to be sector or industry specific.   
That does not mean that this approach is not without difficulty as some of the following issues 
illustrate: i) the gaps in the regulatory system are also mirrored in the protection for whistleblowers;  
ii) the law does not prescribe how a regulator should deal with a concern, or give them any powers 
for dealing with an organisation that has attempted to silence a whistleblower or issued threats of  
reprisal, (a regulatory power to dispense fines and penalties in these circumstances might mitigate 
this issue considerably); iii) what happens when a regulator is disbanded by government (as has 
happened recently in the UK with the abolishment of the Audit Commission – the financial regulator 
for local authorities and the NHS)?   
In addition, PIDA has not been as effective as it could be if all employers and workers knew that both 
internal and external disclosures are protected.  This is especially true of the public sector: outside of 
the health service, PIDA has not been actively promoted by the UK government.  GRECO 
recommended the UK government do more to promote whistleblowing in the public sector and 
found the UK to have only partly implemented this recommendation in 20065.  The OECD 
recommended the UK “pursue its efforts to make the measures of encouraging and protecting 
whistleblowers better known to the general public [emphasis added]”6 as part of an effective anti-
                                                            
5 GRECO (2006) Second Evaluation Round: Compliance Report on the United Kingdom as adopted by the GRECO at its 30th 
Plenary Meeting, Strasbourg, 2006.  
(http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/greco/evaluations/round2/GrecoRC2(2006)8_Add_UnitedKingdom_EN.pdf) 
6 OECD (2005) United Kingdom: Phase 2 Report on the Application of the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign 
Public Officials in International Business Transactions and the 1997 Recommendation on Combating Bribery in 
International Business Transactions, OECD Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs, at 16. 
(http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/62/32/34599062.pdf) 
© PCaW 2012 

 
- 8 - 
  
foreign bribery strategy.   Although the Council of Europe praised PIDA in 20107 as an example of 
comprehensive whistleblower legislation, the vast majority of UK adults still know nothing about it.    
A YouGov survey (2011)8 commissioned by PCaW, found that despite 85% of working adult 
respondents saying that they would raise a concern about possible corruption, danger or serious 
malpractice at work with their employer, 77% of all adult respondents did not know or thought that 
there was no law to protect whistleblowers9.  The risk is that where a serious public interest concern 
is not properly addressed by the organisation itself, or the matter is so serious it needs to be raised 
externally, workers do not realise they have the power to raise it elsewhere nor who is best placed 
to handle their disclosure (for example regulator, MP or media). The failure of the government to 
champion this legislation means that the law is misunderstood and organisations may be unaware of 
the penalties of not getting whistleblowing right. 
The number of claims made under PIDA has annually increased from 157 in 1999 to 2,500 in 2011-
2012 (out of a total of 186,300 claims presented to employment tribunals). During 2011- 2012, 2,200 
PIDA claims were disposed of, with the majority of claims being settled either privately between the 
parties or through the Advice Conciliation and Arbitration Service. Only a small number of claims 
succeed at final hearing (roughly 20%) and this largely due to high levels of conciliation and 
settlement of such claims.  
The UK government refuses to open the register of PIDA claims to public scrutiny and this is another 
key failure in fully implementing PIDA.   A new rule in 2010 allowed claimants to request the tribunal 
to forward a copy of their claim (with details of their concern) to the appropriate regulator, but this 
was a compromise measure and open justice has still not been achieved.  The lack of transparency in 
the tribunal system undermines effective governance by allowing public interest concerns, including 
those about wrongdoing or malpractice, to be ‘buried’ in settlements, which do not reach full legal 
determination. PCaW argues that even if the register of tribunal claims is not opened up, all 
whistleblowing claims should be forwarded to appropriate regulators in order to avoid the public 
interest being unwittingly or deliberately traded for private gain.   
PCaW considers that it is problematic that PIDA has remained static since 1998 despite a changing 
workplace. This demonstrates the value of having a system for oversight and review of law. Some of 
the main issues that need to be addressed in a full consultation about the structure and force of 
PIDA are set out below: 
Vicarious Liability 
This loophole has arisen in the context of a case involving three nurses10 who raised a concern about 
a colleague lying about his qualifications, which was upheld. Then the nurses were subject to 
bullying and harassment from co-workers. One of them received a telephone call threatening her 
daughter and to burn down her home. The case proceeded as far as the Court of Appeal, which 
found that vicarious liability does not exist in PIDA, as it specifically does in discrimination law.  From 
the experience of PCaW harassment and bullying by co-workers is not uncommon in whistleblowing 
                                                            
7 Council of Europe Resolution 1729 (2010) Protection of “whistleblowers” 
(http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta10/ERES1729.htm) 
8 For more details see http://www.pcaw.org.uk/news_attachments/Results%20for%20PCAW-YouGov%20Survey.pdf. 
9 21% of respondents thought that there was no law to protect whistleblowers (Ibid, Note 8). 
10 Fecitt and others v NHS Manchester (supra) 
© PCaW 2012 

 
- 9 - 
  
cases and for there to be no protection in this area means whistleblowers could be facing a 
‘cardboard shield’ in terms of the protection afforded by PIDA, and that employers who do not do 
enough to protect whistleblowers can escape liability altogether. 
Widening the coverage of individuals   
 
Recent employment law cases and media stories have highlighted the difficulties of groups such as 
students on vocational placements in health and care settings, doctors who work as General 
Practitioners, volunteers, non-executive directors of companies, public appointees to Commissions, 
priests, partners in accountancy, law and other professions, and foster carers. The lack of protection 
for job applicants was highlighted in an Employment Tribunal Appeal case (BP v Elstone), where an 
employee was protected from victimisation by his current employer, having raised a concern with 
his previous employer. The tribunal commented that had the claimant been a job applicant he would 
not have been protected. Discrimination at pre-employment stage is a worry for workers considering 
whether and how to raise a concern. It can be daunting for an individual who has raised a genuine 
concern about a danger, risk or malpractice in the workplace and has left the organisation, to know 
what to say about why they left their last job. This presents a very difficult dilemma for a 
whistleblower who has acted to protect others and it is important to build some protection into the 
system, so that whistleblowers are not fearful in such situations. Moreover protection at pre-
employment stages would overcome issues to do with black-listing, which is a fear in some 
industries. In research conducted by PCaW it was found that the second most common negative 
response to whistleblowing from an employer was refusing to provide a good reference.  
Extending the categories of wrongdoing 
Gross waste, gross mismanagement and abuse of authority are not included in PIDA but are included 
in equivalent US legislation. At a time of austerity and the abolition of the UK’s Audit Commission 
(the financial regulator for local government and the National Health Service), PCaW have proposed 
that these categories should be included, particularly as what may be deemed as a waste of money 
may not in fact be illegal but the public interest would be served if such concerns are raised and 
those who raise them are protected. For example it could be a way to encourage workers to raise 
concerns about mass over-expenditure in public spending projects. PCaW have suggested a public 
interest category would be useful to cover these types of wrongdoing which may not be covered by 
the other categories. This would also ensure that PIDA evolves and covers serious ethical concerns 
that fall short of a breach of legal obligation.  
Gagging clauses 
In the PCaW’s experience, little attention has been paid to the anti-gagging provision in PIDA: that is, 
section 43J which outlaws any contractual clause that prevents workers from raising a public interest 
concern. Case law has highlighted the need for greater attention to be drawn to section 43J and for 
there to be tougher enforcement. PCaW’s proposal is for a positive requirement to be placed on 
lawyers advising in the settlement of claims, that they advise claimants about their rights under PIDA 
and that any such gagging clauses are void.  
See below for a quick reference guide to the key provisions of PIDA:  
Quick Guide to PIDA and its key provisions for workers who blow the whistle on corruption 
  Covers most UK workers, including  employees, contractors, trainees and agency workers, 
police officers, and every worker in the National Health Service (NHS)  
  Defines wrongdoing broadly to include disclosures about corruption or any other crime, civil 
offences (including negligence, breach of contract or administrative law), miscarriages of 
justice, dangers to health and safety or the environment, and, importantly, a cover-up of any 
© PCaW 2012 

 
- 10 - 
  
of these; the worker does not have to prove the wrongdoing, nor does it matter if the 
persons to whom the wrongdoing is reported are already aware of it 
  Protects concerns raised internally with an employer (or to the Minister responsible in 
appropriate cases), and externally, to one of the many listed regulatory bodies, to the police 
in serious cases, and, importantly, to the media in certain circumstances, particularly if the 
other routes have been tried and failed and the wrongdoing is on-going 
  Compensates for detriment (i.e. victimisation) short of dismissal, including injury to feelings, 
and those who are dismissed can seek interim relief within 7 days to continue in 
employment; those found to have been unfairly dismissed for blowing the whistle are 
compensated for their full financial losses (uncapped) which recognises that blacklisting can 
occur and that high wage earners can also be whistleblowers   
For a snapshot of some of the decisions under PIDA, see Annex A.  We have attached at Annex B the 
completed table outlining the provisions of PIDA in accordance with the required format for this 
piece of research and at Annex C a background note on the creation of PCaW in the early 1990s. 
Public Concern at Work 
 
October 2012 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

© PCaW 2012 

 
- 11 - 
  
 
 
Annex A  
 
Whistleblowing Case Studies  
 
Over the years there been a number of cases that have put pressure on PIDA and the protection 
for whistleblowers. We highlight some of the cases below which show some of the weaknesses in 
PIDA:  
 
NHS Manchester v Fecitt & Ors  [2011] EWCA Civ 1190 
Mrs Fecitt and two of her colleagues raised concerns about a fellow employee, Mr Swift, 
misrepresenting his professional qualifications to other members of staff at an NHS walk-in centre in 
Manchester. Mr Swift admitted that he had misrepresented his qualifications to his colleagues and 
apologised. As Mr Swift had not misrepresented his qualifications to the employer and had given 
assurances that he would not repeat his behaviour, Mrs Fecitt’s manager decided to take no 
action. Mrs Fecitt and her colleagues were not happy with the outcome and persisted with their 
complaint to successively more senior levels of management. Relations within the walk-in centre 
deteriorated, with some members of staff siding with Mrs Fecitt and her colleagues and others 
siding with Mr Swift.  All three nurses were subjected to workplace bullying.  Mrs Fecitt received an 
anonymous telephone call in which the caller had threatened to burn down her house unless she 
withdrew her complaint against Mr Swift and a photograph of Mrs Fecitt had been displayed on 
Facebook which had caused her distress. Management attempted to encourage the employees at 
the walk-in centre to work together, but without success. Eventually, Mrs Fecitt and a colleague 
were relocated while another colleague was no longer offered shifts at the walk-in centre, as 
management believed this was the only way to resolve the conflict at the site. The Court of Appeal 
found that because there is no provision making it unlawful for employees to victimise 
whistleblowers and since the employees who had allegedly victimised the Claimants could not 
themselves be personally liable under the whistleblowing legislation, no vicarious liability could 
attach to the employer, NHS Manchester.  
 
Comment: This case identifies a glaring hole in PIDA with there being no vicarious liability 
mechanisms. Moreover it sends the wrong messages to poor managers that they can get away with 
doing little or nothing where employees are being bullied by fellow workers.  
 
Street v Derbyshire Unemployed Workers Centre [2004] 4 All ER 839, [2004] IRLR 687, [2005] ICR 
97, [2004] EWCA Civ 964 
A disclosure must be made in good faith to be protected under the whistleblowing provisions of  
PIDA.  In this case the Court of Appeal examined what is meant by “good faith”. The Court of Appeal 
agreed with the EAT and concluded that a disclosure would not be made in good faith if an ulterior 
motive was the predominant purpose of making it, even if the person making the disclosure 
reasonably believed that the disclosure was true.  
 
Comment: This case brings motive into good faith and in our submission to the Court of Appeal we 
argued that the interpretation of good faith should be ‘making the disclosure honestly’. Dame Janet 
Smith in the Shipman Inquiry argued for the removal of good faith. See annex B to PCaW statement 
to the Committee for further exploration of this issue. 
 
 
 

© PCaW 2012 

 
- 12 - 
  
Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management v Geduld   [2010] ICR 325, [2009] UKEAT 
0195_09_0608, [2010] IRLR 38 
In March 2007, Mr Geduld was a director and employee of Cavendish Munro Professional Risks 
Management Limited (Cavendish). Following a shareholding dispute, Mr Geduld contacted a solicitor 
who in turn wrote to the company stating that Mr Geduld  sought legal advice and had been unfairly 
prejudiced as a shareholder.  Mr Geduld was dismissed and then brought a claim under PIDA.  Mr 
Geduld won in the employment tribunal but lost in the EAT because the Solicitor’s letter did not 
contain a disclosure of information but only an allegation.  
 
Comment: This case has led to confusion existing between disclosures of information and allegations. 
This case has meant that a worker who may have a genuine concern and says to his manager that he 
has concern about fraud or health and safety etc. may not be protected because they have not 
disclosed any further information. It is especially confusing as the test used in PIDA for a disclosure to 
a regulator (s43F), the statutory language refers to ‘the information and any allegation in it’.  This 
anomaly should be clarified by amendment. 
 
Wearn v Care Companions 2802033/2007 
Mrs Wearn worked in a nursing home owned by the respondents and raised concerns about staff 
shortages and unsuitable equipment amongst other health and safety concerns with the 
homeowners. At the same time there was an on-going story in the media about the eviction of one 
of the residents as Social Services were refusing to increase their payments to the Home to cover 
higher levels of care required. A story appeared in the Sunday People. The respondents believed that 
Mrs Wearn was the source of the story and dismissed her for that reason. The ET found that Mrs 
Wearn had made internal disclosures to the respondent, but the reason for her dismissal is that the 
respondent believed that Mrs Wearn had made disclosures that were damaging to the Home. Mrs 
Wearn won her claim for automatic unfair dismissal for breach of the statutory disciplinary and 
dismissal procedures but lost her claim on whistleblowing.  
 
Comment: Unlike discrimination cases, there is no protection for workers where they are perceived to 
have a particular characteristic. This could be rectified by allowing wrongly identified whistleblowers 
to be protected. 
 
BP v Elstone [2010] ICR 879, [2010] IRLR 558, [2010] UKEAT 0141_09_3103 
Mr Elstone worked for Petrotechnics and his job involved evaluating safety processes for clients, 
including BP. While at Petrotechnics, he made a protected disclosure about safety processes to BP 
managers. Petrotechnics found out about this and dismissed the employee for disclosing 
confidential information to BP. Mr Elstone then began working as a consultant at BP, but was not 
offered further consultancy agreements after the first agreement, because BP became aware that he 
had been dismissed from Petrotechnics for disclosing confidential information.  
 
Both the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal extended PIDA protection to a 
whistleblower who had raised a concern in his previous employment and had been victimised by his 
current employer when they discovered this. Interestingly, the judgment points out that had the 
whistleblower been victimised at point of recruitment, he would not have been protected. 
 
Comment: This case identifies that PIDA protection does not apply at the pre-employment stage and 
this needs to be rectified to avoid issues such as blacklisting.  
 
 
 
 

© PCaW 2012 

 
- 13 - 
  
Private employment rights 
 
Parkins v Sodexho [2001] UKEAT 1239_00_2206 
This was an interim relief hearing, Mr Parkins worked for the Respondents for less than a year and 
brought a claim for automatic unfair dismissal on the grounds of having made a protected 
disclosure. The Claimant argued he had been dismissed for raising concerns about lack of supervision 
and that he had to phone an off-site supervisor when he left, and that this was a breach of contract 
and the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. The initial claim failed at Employment Tribunal (ET) who 
stated that “an allegation of breach of an employment contract in relation to the performance of 
duties comes within the letter or spirit of the statutory provision”. On appeal, the Employment 
Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found that this was a breach of legal obligation and that there is no reason to 
distinguish a legal obligation which arises under an individual's contract of employment from any 
other form of legal obligation. 
 
Comment:  Interestingly  the ET and EAT could have found that this a protected disclosure on the 
ground that the health and safety of any individual has been, is being or is likely to be endangered 
(section 43B (1)(d)). 
 
Bengochea M v Citibank  3202885/06  
Mr Bengochea was a long standing employee of Citibank and employed as a development director at 
the Bank.  The claimant moved to different roles within the Bank but in the restructuring there was 
confusion about his job title- whether it was Vice President or Managing Director. The claimant said 
that he had been dismissed because he had made protected disclosures about his job title. The ET 
found the claimant had made a protected disclosure when he raised his concern regarding his job 
title, as this was found to be a breach of a legal obligation. The PIDA claim failed because no 
detriment was established and the claimant won on the grounds that his dismissal had been 
procedurally unfair. 
 
Comment: The ET noted that Counsel for the Respondent argued that it “was difficult to imagine 
disclosures with less to do with the public interest than those alleged in the present case”. 
 
In PCaW’s analysis of employment tribunal decisions the failure to investigate grievances has often 
been cited as a breach of a legal obligation see:  
 
Hage v Camelon Clinic Ltd 3304511/2009 
Ms Hage was a nurse employed at the respondent’s clinic. She started working at the clinic in 2008 
and in 2009 reduced her hours.  The respondents said Ms Hage was not entitled to have paid rest 
breaks. The ET found that raising a concern about failure to deal with the claimant’s grievance is a 
protected disclosure.  
 
Kowalska v NKB Ltds 
Ms Kowalska worked in a small hotel owned by respondents. The claimant was not given holiday 
pay, contractual sick pay and her accommodation pay was more than allowed for a person on 
minimum wage. The Claimant was dismissed and took an interim relief claim which she won.  
 
Comment:  Claims for the above could be dealt with under wrongful dismissal or breach of contract 
claims. 

 
 
© PCaW 2012 

 
- 14 - 
  
Annex B 
TI Research project: Public Interest Disclosure Act 
 
Yes  No 
Partial  Notes 
Broad definition 

 
 
 
of whistleblowing 
Broad definition 

 
 
No specific definition – covers all UK workers as part of UK 
of whistleblower 
employment protection legislation 
Broad definition 

 
 
Very broad in accordance with case law. 
of retribution 
protection 
Internal reporting 

 
 
 
mechanism 
External reporting  X 
 
 
 
mechanism 
Whistleblower 

 
 
In the sense that the whistleblower has a forum for the 
participation 
resolution of his claim for compensation.  Weak in relation 
to the issue raised (the substance of the protected 
disclosure) and any legal sanction relating thereto 
Rewards  
 

 
But law does provide full and uncapped compensation 
system 
Protection of 
 

 
Law is silent on this, but case law suggests that where 
confidentiality 
confidentiality is not maintained that will increase 
likelihood of reprisal 
Anonymous 
 

 
As law requires whistleblower to establish causal link 
reports accepted 
between disclosure and reprisal, in effect it is incredibly 
difficult to be protected for an anonymous disclosure 
No sanctions for 

 
 
The law is silent on this but case law has allowed a 
misguided 
whistleblower to be protected when raising concern that is 
reporting 
misguided (see Babula v Waltham Forest) 
Whistleblower 
 

 
Although UK regulatory system is included in statutory 
complaints 
framework 
authority 
Genuine day  

 
 
Right to proceed to employment tribunal 
in court 
Full range of 

 
 
 
remedies 
Penalties for 
 

 
Save that if a whistleblower succeeds then there is an 
retaliation 
unlimited compensatory award  - highest to date is £5 
million 
Involvement of 

 
 
 
multiple actors 
 
 
 
 
© PCaW 2012 

 
- 15 - 
  
Annex C 
BACKGROUND TO THE CREATION OF A DEDICATED WHISTLEBLOWING CHARITY IN THE UK 
By the end of the 1980s, public confidence in the ability of British institutions - whether private or 
public - to deliver their services safely had suffered.  The British public were shocked when it was 
revealed that children in care had been abused over a 13-year period by those employed to protect 
them; that serious lapses in safety standards had been common prior to the explosion on a north sea 
oil rig that killed 167 men; and that a top UK insurance company could collapse leaving behind £34 
million in unpaid debts11.  In 1990 the Public Interest Research Centre (PIRC) - through its publishing 
arm, Social Audit - published the findings of a research project it had conducted into self-regulation 
and whistleblowing in UK companies12.  The report was the seed from which the first serious civil 
society initiative to address whistleblowing in the UK would grow.  
One of the report’s key findings was that staff often knew of problems or risks but few organisations 
provided adequate mechanisms for staff to raise their concerns in the workplace.  Case studies 
showed how the absence of such mechanisms often led to misunderstandings, confrontations, 
victimisation of the employee and adverse publicity if the concern was unnecessarily aired outside 
the company.  In the worst cases - as public inquiries into disasters and scandals demonstrated - 
genuine opportunities were missed to prevent damage being done.  Launched during a press 
conference at the Confederation of British Industry in 1990, the CBI’s Director-General Sir John 
Banham recommended the PIRC report Minding Your Own Business as “essential reading for all 
corporate managers.” 
PIRC and others identified the need for an independent body to address accountability in the 
workplace in the public interest.  As originally conceived, a new organisation could advise 
individuals, help employers, conduct research and promote good practice.  The Joseph Rowntree 
Charitable Trust offered £250,000 start-up funding in the form of a five-year challenge grant for the 
new organisation13.  
In 1990 a steering committee14 was set up and consulted widely to determine what, if any, support 
existed for such an initiative.  The committee spoke to British business and professional 
organisations, corporate executives, lawyers, individual whistleblowers and public interest groups in 
Britain and the United States.  The consultation revealed great interest in the issues of organisational 
accountability and whistleblowing, and support for an independent body to address it.     
                                                            
11 The police inquiry into the abuse of children in care led to the conviction in 1991 of three men employed by 
Leicestershire County Council including the Officer in Charge of Children’s Homes, Frank Beck.  The Cullen Inquiry not only 
identified the causes of the explosion on the Piper Alpha oil platform but found that “workers do not want to put their 
continued employment in jeopardy through raising a safety issue that might embarrass management.”  After the collapse 
of the Roger Levitt’s Group - a top UK life insurance company - Levitt was charged with fraud worth £90 million but pleaded 
guilty to a lesser charge and served only 180 hours community service.      
12 The project was supported by the Nuffield Foundation.  
13 A challenge grant required the new body to raise a further £250,000 - either in earned income or by securing other 
charitable funds. 
14 This steering committee included Marlene Winfield, freelance social policy specialist and author of the PIRC report, 
Maurice Frankel of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, Guy Dehn, Legal Officer of the National Consumer Council 
(NCC), and Charles Medawar, Director of PIRC. 
© PCaW 2012 

 
- 16 - 
  
It was decided that the new body would obtain charitable status, incorporate as a limited company 
and seek designation from the Law Society of England and Wales and the Bar Council as a legal 
advice centre.  As a charity and limited company, the new body could seek the funding it needed, be 
a separate legal entity and limit the liability of its executive – a voluntary Board of Trustees who 
would commit their time and expertise to the new venture.  As a designated legal advice centre 
individuals could seek help in the context of lawyer-client confidentiality.  This latter point was 
extremely important if the new body was to reassure individuals that it was safe to seek advice 
about their concerns outside the workplace.     
Surprisingly, charitable status was initially refused by the Charity Commission on the basis that “such 
a service would not be in the public interest.”  After a year of argument and persuasion15, charitable 
status was finally granted in September 199316 and in October 1993, Public Concern at Work – the 
whistleblowing charity - was officially launched.   
At the heart of the charity’s work is the provision of free legal advice to workers who have witnessed 
wrongdoing, malpractice or serious risk in the workplace. This involves helping workers to raise a 
concern clearly, constructively and responsibly.  PCaW also works with organisations to establish 
robust whistleblowing arrangements that strengthen accountability and transparency in the 
workplace. All income the charity receives is used to support this work. 
In almost 20 years of operations, PCaW has established itself as the leading independent authority 
on public interest whistleblowing in the UK and has been instrumental in establishing best practice in 
the UK and abroad on this vital anti-corruption issue. The charity campaigned and drafted the UK 
whistleblowing law, the Public Interest Disclosure Act. Its best practice model for organisations is 
outlined in the British Standards Institution PAS 1998:2008 Whistleblowing Arrangements Code of 
Practice
 (BSICoP), drafted by the charity in conjunction with a large working group drawn from a 
wide variety of sectors and interests.  PCaW has also built a reputation for providing high quality 
consultancy services to UK and international organisations17.  
 
                                                            
15 Advocating for the new charity, Michael Brindle QC and Christopher McCall QC provided invaluable assistance free of 
charge to persuade the Charity Commission to grant charitable status. 
16 Ironically, soon after this the Chief Charity Commissioner delivered a public address on the future of UK charities and 
selected PCaW as a model of the new breed of charity that meets and develops the public interest. 
17 Clients include Lloyds Banking Group, Equitable Life, Bank of England, ITV and the Serious Fraud Office. We have also 
provided advice on whistleblowing and legal best practice internationally, including to the governments of Holland, Nigeria, 
Canada, Ukraine, South Korea and Japan, World Bank, and UNDP. 
© PCaW 2012