Page 33 - BOSS Today Issue 17

legal

ConfidentiaLity must be

watertight

Make sure your employees understand what they are meant to be
confidential about

s an employer, you can the employee’s right to freedom
discipline and even of expression under the european
adismiss employees Convention of Human Rights.
who breach confidentiality Having found that the reason for
clauses and policies – but only dismissal was not a protected
if they are clearly defined. If an disclosure, it had not then clearly
employee is able to claim that addressed whether there had
the confidentiality policy does been a breach of Ms Hill’s right to
not sufficiently define what freedom of expression.
information is confidential, Under the circumstances,
does a potentially fair dismissal the contributory fault could not
become unfair? The recent stand for two reasons:
employment appeals tribunal
(eaT) case of Hill v governing 1. although the school had
Body of great Tey Primary School a confidentiality policy, this
suggests it might do. policy did not set out which
Ms Hill was a dinner lady information should be treated
who informed a parent that her as confidential and who was
child had been tied to railings entitled to have the information
and whipped across the legs kept confidential.
by other pupils. as a result she
was suspended by the school. 2. The school had also not
During her suspension she achieved an adequate balance
complained to the press and between the employee’s right to
told them about the incident freedom of expression and her
and her suspension. duty of confidentiality.
She was then dismissed whistleblowing claim failed, it any compensatory sum the
for breaching the school’s said, she was also guilty of 80% eT should have looked at The case illustrates the risk
confidentiality policy and for contributory fault. as a result, whether Ms Hill would have of having insufficiently defined
bringing it into disrepute. the compensation was reduced been dismissed in any event. confidentiality clauses and
She brought claims in to a token amount and Ms Hill When dealing with this issue, policies. The tribunals seem to
the employment tribunal appealed to the eaT. it should have considered her have made their position clear
(eT) for unfair dismissal and The eaT overturned the eT’s long service and good record, that an employee cannot be
whistleblowing on public decision and remitted the case instead of assuming that she liable for conduct which they do
interest grounds. for a rehearing. The eaT criticised would have been dismissed and not know is wrong.
Initially the eT held that Ms the eT on two grounds in then looking at whether that
Hill succeeded in her unfair particular: dismissal would have been fair. n For more aDVice
dismissal claim, but only on contact Your BoSS
procedural grounds. The 1. Before deciding to reduce 2. The eT also failed to consider hr aDViSer

May/June 2013 | BOSS TODAY 33

DTB p32-p33.indd 3 29/05/2013 14:42