An engineering worker has been awarded £66,295 at tribunal after he was unfairly dismissed and suffered a detriment after he made a protected disclosure (i.e. whistleblowing) by repeatedly raising concerns about his manager’s competence.The employee, Mr Estcourt, was working for Morrison Energy and he raised concerns both in emails and verbally about the competence of his manager.He raised concerns over a three-month period and said that the manager’s lack of engineering training was putting employees and the public at risk.But after raising the concerns, Mr Estcourt was dismissed by Morrison Energy for being “obstructive in his behaviours and unsupportive in terms of operations.”The tribunal found the employer did not have reasonable grounds to dismiss Mr Estcourt and stated he had been an “exemplary employee.”<h2 id="c9425750-0886-424b-a2ef-56bbe55020c0" data-toc-id="c9425750-0886-424b-a2ef-56bbe55020c0">Learning for employers</h2><ul><li>Although the employee did not refer to his concerns about the manager as “protected disclosures”, the employer should have regarded them as such and followed their Whistleblowing procedure.</li><li>Employers must avoid being influenced by an employee’s decision to make a protected disclosure when considering whether to dismiss them. In this case, the employer was unable to satisfy the tribunal that the whistleblowing and their decision to dismiss were not linked.</li><li>The case is a reminder to employers that any decision to dismiss must be reasonable, based on evidence and must not be a consequence or reaction to a whistleblowing.</li><li>Employers need to be alert to the likelihood that that any employee concerns about competence, safety or professional standards may constitute protected disclosures.</li></ul>Don’t forget that in April 2026 whistleblowing law has been expanded and any report of sexual harassment will now be a protected disclosure.Source: Gavin Parrott

An engineering worker has been awarded £66,295 at tribunal after he was unfairly dismissed and suffered a detriment after he made a protected disclosure (i.e. whistleblowing)

Engineer awarded £66,000 after calling manager “incompetent”

A recent study of 2,000 UK employees has identified the habits that annoy co-workers the most!The research conducted by Essential Workwear found that 10% of workers admit to regularly leaving dirty cups and dishes lying around and a third of workers dislike colleagues that do not tidy up after themselves.22% of workers get annoyed by colleagues that microwave smelly food at lunchtimes, exacerbating the risk of arguments in communal break out areas!The research also identified the most inappropriate behaviours of co-workers. The top 5 inappropriate behaviours are:<ol><li>Flirting with colleagues</li><li>Discussing a dislike of a colleague</li><li>Scrolling social media</li><li>Taking smoking breaks</li><li>Putting on makeup or doing their hair at work</li></ol>22% of UK workers say they find it annoying when a colleague skips a tea round!<h3 id="51cdfba8-526d-4d0e-b068-8b7e6450914e" data-toc-id="51cdfba8-526d-4d0e-b068-8b7e6450914e">How should you deal with annoying office behaviours?</h3><ul><li>Do not let it build up as you risk letting out your frustrations through an emotional reaction at a later point about something relatively minor.</li><li>Have a gentle conversation that focuses on your productivity and not the personality of the co-worker. Instead of telling someone they are “being annoying” try explaining that you are finding it difficult to focus on a complex task. Perhaps ask if your colleague could wear headphones for a while. Such an approach helps avoid direct confrontation.</li><li>If your issue relates to the laziness of a co-worker then raise it with your manager. Focus on the impact the behaviour has on you and your productivity. Explain how your co-workers delays or poor-quality output affect your ability to do your job well. Taking this approach focuses on the practical success of the organisation rather than the character of your co-worker. This approach is more likely to achieve the change you are wanting.</li><li>If you are feeling social rejection for being omitted from a tea round then that is a natural reaction because your brain processes social exclusion in the same area that it processes physical pain. So don’t be afraid to express how being excluded by co-workers makes you feel.</li></ul>Source: Gavin Parrott

A recent study of 2,000 UK employees has identified the habits that annoy co-workers the most!

Workplace etiquette – what most bothers work colleagues?

Here at SSG we are frequently asked about how to deal with the risks of an employee covertly recording a grievance or disciplinary meetings and whether that recording can then be used as evidence at a tribunal.If an employer has a policy that recording meetings is prohibited it will become a disciplinary matter if an employee is found to have made a covert recording.Also, if an employee breaches such a policy but their tribunal claim is still successful it will usually reduce the amount of compensation that would have been due to them.<h3 id="22700c1b-c1aa-4097-900d-83cc634f9980" data-toc-id="22700c1b-c1aa-4097-900d-83cc634f9980">The grey area</h3>But whether a recording can be presented at tribunal even when it was made covertly is a grey area.An example where the covert recording could be allowed as evidence (for the employee’s case) would be when the individual has captured evidence of misconduct or wrongdoing that would otherwise not have come to light. This could be especially relevant if the employee has been of bullied or harassed by a more senior colleague or manager.The ability to refer to covert recordings in tribunal proceedings depends on what has been recorded.It might be that an employee has made a recording which shows that the original notes or transcript were an inaccurate representation of the meeting. For example, the notes alone may put the employer in a favourable light when reality of what occurred would be less favourable to them. A recording might show that the employer’s written version of events was a misleading representation of what was said. In such a case a judge may allow the covert recording as evidence because it would be the only way to definitively show what had been said in the meeting.But what about recordings of discussions about an employee but where they were not present?These are recorded conversations from which the employee was excluded and should not have been privy to, but which are subsequently acquired. These could be captured by a phone or on a Teams call which were left on record. Generally, these recordings would not be admissible as evidence at tribunal on the basis that such discussions are intended to be confidential between the participants.But a tribunal may rule that such a covert recording can be admissible if they showed evidence of discrimination, harassment or bullying.Source: Gavin Parrott

We are frequently asked about how to deal with the risks of an employee covertly recording a grievance or disciplinary meetings and whether that recording can then be used as evidence at a tribunal.  

What are the legal pitfalls of covertly recording meetings?

New legislation came into effect in April which guarantees that disabled people and those with health conditions will not immediately lose their benefits if they try to work or volunteer for work.The aim of the legislation is to support people to try and work without the fear of automatically facing a reassessment of their benefits or losing their existing benefits.The changes are part of the Government’s drive to “unlock work” for sick or disabled people and to boost living standards by helping them obtain secure jobs.The legislation will help remove one of the barriers to entering the workplace and should help alleviate fears of what will happen if an attempt to work is unsuccessful.Whilst disability campaigners have welcomed the legislation it will still need employers to take practical steps to enable individuals with disabilities or underlying health issues to successfully access work and then sustain it.The legislation is reliant on employers making their workplaces accessible and considering how jobs can be made flexible around the needs of the individual wishing to exercise their new “right to try” work.Employers need to consider how they can offer support and take a positive view on how individuals can be facilitated and accommodated within their organisation, but balance this by enabling the individual to deliver against what the organisation needs from the role they perform.As the legislation comes into force and practical examples emerge of how employers are helping individuals with disabilities or health issues to successfully access job roles, we will share these with you.Source: Gavin Parrott

New legislation which guarantees that disabled people and those with health conditions will not immediately lose their benefits.