In the case of Cox v Adecco Daniel Cox worked in the Special Educational Needs Department at a local council. He was an agency worker. His initial role was an Education, Health and Care Plan (“EHCP”) Assistant. He was then approached by another agency to apply for the role of ECHP Co-ordinator despite having expressed concerns that he was not qualified for the role. He was charged out at an increased rate.
Colleagues found out about his pay, it is alleged, from the first agency. Cox considered that his personal data had been given to his colleagues in breach of the GDPR. He disclosed information that tended to show that there had been fraud; essentially, that the second agency was overcharging by claiming that staff were working at a higher level than they were, and then not passing on the additional payment to the workers. His contract was terminated. His claim was that he had been subject to detriment and/or dismissed for making protected disclosures.
Both agencies and the local council applied for a strike out on the grounds that there was no, or little, reasonable prospect of the claimant establishing that he had made a protected disclosure.
The EAT held that the ET had erred in law by striking out the claim without more detailed analysis. You can’t decide whether a claim has reasonable prospects of success if you don’t know what it is.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
