Ramsay v Walker Snack Foods Ltd, UKEAT/0601/03/MAA (EAT, 13 February 2004)
Leading case in the UK on when and how an employer can protect the whistleblower’s identity when looking at serious allegations and the potential dismissal of an accused. In this case, three employees were dismissed having stolen money in crisp packets (inserted as part of a sales promotion). This case illustrates how the court has approached the competing interests of the accused’s right to a fair trial and the protection of the identity of the whistleblower. Further key case of
Linfood Cash & Carry Ltd v Thomson [1989] IRLR 235 also referred to established guidelines on how to maintain a balance between protecting the identity of the whistleblower and providing a fair hearing for the employee. These are also outlined in the Walkers case, confirming that even if these guidelines were not followed completely, an employer could still be reasonable in dismissing an employee based on anonymised statements from whistleblowers.
Note that these cases arise out of facts showing that the whistleblowers were too fearful of reprisals to be named. Precautions undertaken by the employer to protect identity included only having one person with whom all of the witnesses engaged (thus reducing the chance of identity being disclosed), limiting the availability of the witness evidence to those referred to in that evidence (where there are multiple individuals accused of wrongdoing), and redacting statements to reduce the chance that identity would be discovered.