UK: Whistleblowing - detriment because of "ordinary" unreasonable behaviour while making a disclosure could not be severed from the disclosure

Detriment for making a whistleblowing protected disclosure is unlawful, but in some cases it may be possible to establish that the reason for the treatment was the manner of making the disclosure and that this is distinct from the disclosure itself, thereby side-stepping whistleblowing protection. The EAT decision in Riley v Belmont Green Finance t/a Vida Homeloans illustrates the limits to this defence, highlighting that employers are unlikely to be able to draw this distinction where the reason for treatment is "ordinary" unreasonable behaviour to be expected in the normal circumstances of making a workplace complaint.

In this case the individual had displayed a negative and dismissive attitude and manner in a meeting to consider his complaints about work systems; he was angry and frustrated but was not offensive or abusive. In these circumstances, the tribunal had been wrong to assume that the employer could avoid whistleblowing claims by claiming that the reason for its treatment was the individual's manner rather than the complaint itself (although on the facts the complaint did not amount to a protected disclosure).