Tribunal rejects claims of detriment from safeguarding lead who sued for £1.4m

An Employment Tribunal has rejected whistleblowing allegations made against North Somerset Council by a former service leader in safeguarding.

Maggie Siviter’s claims of detriment pursuant to s.47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (protected disclosures) were dismissed in a unanimous judgment. The council said it was being sued for £1.4m.

The local authority admitted that Siviter had made certain public interest disclosures but maintained that it was a significant data protection breach had had led to her dismissal.

In its ruling the tribunal found that in a limited extent the claimant did make protected disclosures during the course of her employment.

However, it also found that the council “took those disclosures seriously and carried out independent and thorough investigations in respect of those disclosures. Further we find that the claimant was not subjected to any detriments as a result of making those disclosures.”

The tribunal rejected Siviter’s contentions that she suffered detriment because of her pursuit and belief in a ‘Rotherham’ type situation with the council concerning child sexual exploitation.

“There is little doubt that the claimant convinced herself that she had uncovered such a scenario and went to considerable lengths to express her view to those directly employed by the respondents and others with whom she contacted,” it said, adding that Siviter’s view was treated with objective assessment by others.

“However, the claimant came to the belief at some time, probably after being told her contract was not to be renewed, that there had been collusion among senior employees of the respondents to dismiss her and to suppress the facts. Despite the lack of evidence and information, the claimant carried on making serious and unsubstantiated allegations which led her to access and copy confidential information from the respondents.”

The tribunal added that, applying the principles expressed in the case of Miss L Parsons v Air Plus International Limited against the statutory framework and other case law, it found that looking at the whole question where there is a history of disclosure, some protected and others not, it had found that no detriment was suffered by the claimant in relation to her protected disclosures.

“The protected disclosures made by the claimant did not materially influence the respondents’ treatment of the claimant or in any way influence it,” the tribunal said.

It also rejected the suggestion that the respondents were embarrassed or in some way involved in collusion to protect themselves or others as alleged by the claimant. “The claimant ignored the obvious deficiencies in what she was saying and doing and ignored the opinions of her colleagues which highlighted those deficiencies. The claimant failed to exercise proper professional judgement in reaching conclusions.”

In reality, the tribunal said, the claimant was blinded to other explanations and was not assisted by a difficult working relationship with a colleague.

Responding to the ruling, Sheila Smith, Director of People and Communities at North Somerset, said: “We always have and always will take our safeguarding responsibilities extremely seriously.

“While we will always welcome and encourage anyone with concerns about our handling of safeguarding matters to raise them with us, we want to make it clear that it was only when Ms Siviter was dismissed from the council that she made her serious (and unfounded) allegations.

“Defending this case has cost the taxpayer over £200,000 and years of our officers’ time. These monies could have been better used in delivering much needed services to children and families. We are pleased that we can now put this matter behind us and return our full attention to serving the children and adults of North Somerset.”