Mr M Steward v Oxfordshire County Council and 2 others — 2026

Mr M Steward worked for Oxfordshire County Council as site manager at Langford Village Community Primary School from 10 July to 20 December 2023. He resigned on 5 December 2023. The tribunal upheld his whistleblowing detriment claims concerning two negative references provided by headteacher Sarah Tomlin on behalf of the council. There was no constructive dismissal claim.

The tribunal found that most of the claimant’s September 2023 disclosures, his report of 9 November 2023 and his further communication of 14 December 2023 were protected disclosures. They concerned matters including fire exits, emergency lighting, water supplies, Legionella prevention and bin storage. He reasonably believed that the information tended to show health and safety risks or breaches of legal obligations and that disclosure was in the public interest. The tribunal expressly made no finding that the school was unsafe. Two alleged September statements, concerning the absence of fire drills for approximately two years and an outdated, unsuitable fire evacuation policy, were not proved to have been made.

The tribunal accepted that there were difficulties in the claimant’s working relationships, but found that the respondents later portrayed his performance as worse than it was. Contemporary emails showed that Sarah Tomlin and business manager Sarah Bridge had praised his revised fire procedure, contrary to their later accounts. The documents did not support allegations that he sent numerous overlapping emails. Sarah Tomlin sought HR advice about his conduct and performance on 1 October 2023 but took none of the recommended action. The tribunal could not reconcile that lack of action with the negative reference subsequently given.

The first reference, provided to St Edburg’s on 13 December 2023, led to the withdrawal of a job offer. Under section 48(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the respondents had to show the grounds for the reference. The tribunal rejected Sarah Tomlin’s explanation that it accurately reflected the claimant’s performance. It inferred that the September and 9 November protected disclosures were a material cause of the negative reference. Complaints from other staff could not explain it because Sarah Tomlin received them only after the reference had been sent.

The second reference, provided to Woodstock CE Primary School on or around 19 January 2024, was identical to the first. No separate explanation was given, so the tribunal applied the same reasoning and found a further unlawful whistleblowing detriment. Although staff complaints had been received by then, there was no indication that they caused the repeated reference. This employer proceeded with the appointment, and the claimant took up the role.

The claim concerning garden leave and Sarah Tomlin’s complaint against the claimant on 14 December 2023 was dismissed. Those actions followed allegations made by other staff and were not caused by protected disclosures. The grievance-handling claims also failed. There was no evidence that those handling the grievance knew about the disclosures, and the grievance itself neither set them out nor alleged that they had caused detriment. The tribunal found no link between the disclosures and the handling of the grievance.