Middlesbrough Council worker Brian Foulger claims unfair dismissal after allegedly disclosing confidential information related to a whistleblower case.
Foulger attended a meeting about a potential whistleblower who claimed race discrimination. This meeting included Clive Heaphy, then chief executive. Foulger represented the GMB union at the meeting.
Foulger discussed the matter with HR by phone, during which the potential whistleblower’s identity was revealed. The HR officer then reported this to her manager.
The council suspended Foulger and later fired him for gross misconduct involving a breach of GDPR. Foulger is still paid pending his legal claim and a court ordered the council to continue his contract.
Foulger raised concerns years ago about a bridge. An audit followed, and findings were made public. He believes this made him a target and that he faced unfair treatment due to his union role.
Erik Scollay replaced Heaphy as chief executive and decided on the disciplinary action against Foulger. Scollay said the meeting was very sensitive and he thought Foulger seriously breached confidentiality.
Scollay stated that Foulger acted outside agreed parameters supposedly proposed by Heaphy. He said the phone talk revealed the whistleblower’s identity and continued for 46 minutes, according to Scollay.
Confidential and sensitive things were discussed, leading Scollay to feel that “neither party should have maintained that conversation.” There was disagreement over Foulger’s authority, as the whistleblower was not in his union, and doubt exists if she gave Foulger consent.
Neil Sharples, a GMB legal officer, questioned Scollay and asked if he had pre-decided Foulger’s dismissal. Scollay denied this.
Sharples said Foulger never knew what policy he had broken. Scollay admitted that Foulger lacked the GDPR policy and it was never discussed at his hearing.
Scollay also had not checked Foulger’s record, which showed no prior discipline issues. Sharples argued the firing was unreasonable.
Scollay said the shared information was central to the issue, referring to the potential whistleblowing case. Due to the serious confidentiality breach, he felt it was reasonable.
Scollay said that the firing was “absolutely not” due to union work. He opposed Foulger’s re-employment because of broken trust. The tribunal was considering re-employment for Foulger when Scollay stated his opposition.
Sam Gilmore, head of economic growth, testified that he assessed if disciplinary action was needed. His other options were no action, support, or training, but Gilmore found a disciplinary hearing necessary. He noted “inconsistencies” in Foulger’s provided account.
Gilmore’s job was to decide next steps. He stated establishing misconduct was not his responsibility, but he thought confidential data was shared.
Sharples suggested Foulger was assessing the grievance’s merits. Sam Healy, representing the council, disputed the premise. The employment tribunal continues.