Ms L Hudson, of Counsel Public Access For the v Respondent — 2024

The claimant worked for Hertfordshire County Council for about six weeks as a locum supervising social worker in Adoption and Fostering services. On 9 June 2022 she emailed concerns about two foster children after an announced and unannounced visit, including the condition of a four-month-old baby’s nose and breathing, a baby left in a pram in the garden, and mixed answers from the foster carers about the older child’s breakfast. The tribunal found that she disclosed information to the children’s social worker, her manager, the Fostering Service Manager, the Independent Reviewing Officer and the LADO, and that she believed the matter was in the public interest and tended to show both failure to comply with a legal obligation and a danger to health or safety under section 43B ERA 1996.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant was exercising professional judgment in circumstances where her role required her to safeguard children and to have professional curiosity. It found her belief to be reasonable, saying that her concern was not unreasonable or fanciful and that, given her role, any doubt should be resolved in favour of the child. The tribunal therefore held that the 9 June 2022 email amounted to a qualifying disclosure and protected disclosure for the purposes of the whistleblowing provisions.

On detriment, the tribunal found that Grete Lund’s reference of 29 June 2022 was the reason the prospective offer of employment was withdrawn. It held that the reference was inaccurate in material respects, including the statement that the claimant had requested the children be removed after one visit, which did not reflect what had happened. The tribunal accepted that some concerns existed about performance and complaints from foster carers, but by majority it found that the negative opinion in the reference arose because the claimant had copied the IRO and LADO into her concerns, and that this was a substantial reason for the adverse reference. The majority therefore upheld the whistleblowing detriment claim; Mr Hough dissented and would have found the reference was based on performance issues rather than the protected disclosure.

The tribunal noted that the claimant had brought a complaint about the reference and that, on 12 July 2022 and again on 1 August 2022, the respondent rescinded the original reference and provided a basic factual reference. It also recorded that Aim High later said it would have continued with the recruitment process if it had received the amended reference first. At the end of the liability hearing the tribunal listed the case for a remedy hearing if necessary, so no compensation figure was determined in this judgment.