Claimant v Financial Conduct Authority

Claimant alleged he made protected disclosures during supervision meetings between September 2020 and March 2021 about failures to comply with FOIA, health and safety endangerment, and misleading conduct. Tribunal found claimant provided no evidence of what was actually said in most meetings - no witness account, no contemporaneous notes. Without evidence, tribunal could not make findings that the alleged disclosures occurred. For meetings with recordings/transcripts (12 Feb and 12 March 2021), discussions were too general to amount to specific disclosures of wrongdoing as alleged.

Claimant alleged multiple detriments including aggressive conduct by manager Mr Cobbett, being called a 'loose cannon', unfair performance improvement plan, delays in whistleblowing investigation and grievances, and suspension. Tribunal found: (1) Most alleged detriments predated any protected disclosure or claimant provided no evidence they occurred; (2) Where conduct occurred (e.g. PIP, suspension), it was due to genuine performance concerns or the claimant's conduct in forwarding 400+ emails to personal account containing highly sensitive information; (3) This conduct was properly distinguishable from whistleblowing - no need for whistleblower to gather evidence; (4) Many claims were out of time and claimant deliberately chose not to pursue them earlier.

Tribunal found the reason for dismissal was the claimant's conduct in forwarding over 400 emails (12 containing highly sensitive/confidential information) to his personal email account in breach of the Information and Systems Acceptable Use Policy. This conduct was properly distinguishable from the act of making protected disclosures - there is no need for a whistleblower to gather evidence to prove wrongdoing. The claimant's own admission that he was gathering information for both whistleblowing and other grievances further severed any link. Therefore the sole or principal reason for dismissal was not the claimant's protected disclosure.

Conduct was a potentially fair reason for dismissal. The claimant did not dispute the underlying facts - he sent 400+ emails to himself including 12 with highly sensitive information. Investigation was thorough (Project Stone and subsequent investigation by Mr Monaghan). Disciplinary process was fair with multiple opportunities for claimant to explain his actions. He failed to provide clear justification for why the 12 most serious emails were needed for his whistleblowing complaint. The dismissing officer Mr Geale was entitled to conclude the breach of ISAUP was particularly serious gross misconduct given: deliberate and systematic conduct over 3-4 months, highly sensitive information involved, claimant's role in data protection, and retention of information. Dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses.