Mr A Morris v The Royal Bank of Canada (London Branch) — 2019

The Tribunal found that Mr A Morris had raised a series of concerns during his 2019 work in AML Advisory, including matters relating to client M, client G, offshore/onshore account classification, and information security. It held that his communications generally expressed suspicion or concern about clients or working arrangements, but did not disclose information tending to show that Royal Bank of Canada (London Branch) had failed, was failing, or was likely to fail to comply with a legal obligation, or that it had committed, was committing, or was likely to commit a criminal offence. On the Tribunal’s findings, the claimant genuinely believed some of the matters were suspicious, but that was not enough: the alleged disclosures did not meet the statutory test for protected disclosures.

The Tribunal also rejected the health and safety complaint. It found that the 8 and 11 November 2019 discussions about desk rotations and workstation assessments did not amount to a qualifying disclosure under s.43B ERA 1996 or a detriment under s.44(1)(c). On the whistleblowing detriment allegations more generally, it held that complaints about Ms Clifford/Travers’ management style, working from home, the 10 December 2019 salary and bonus decisions, the probation extension, the work plan, and the grievance and appeal process were not shown to have been caused by protected disclosures. The Tribunal found that management had genuine performance concerns about the claimant, that those concerns were documented before the probation extension, and that the bank’s staff took his escalations seriously and asked for further information so they could investigate them.

On jurisdiction, the Tribunal held it could not consider detriment complaints based on acts or omissions before 6 December 2019. For the later complaints, it found the claimant had not been subjected to the alleged detriments because of protected disclosures. It accepted that the grievance and appeal were detailed and took time, but concluded the processes were handled reasonably, including by Mr Taor and later by Mr Uden with an external investigator. The Tribunal also found there was no constructive dismissal: it held there was no repudiatory breach of contract or implied term of trust and confidence, and therefore no basis for the automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996. No financial remedy was awarded.