PIDA without lawyers


A self help guide.

It began with a conversation that lasted just a few minutes. The absurdity is that at any point in that process, the consequences could have been curtailed (as they were in the end) almost as simply as they began.

My wife, Jo, had worked for eight months at Mama East African Women’s Group, a charity in South Yorkshire teaching English to Somali women. The programme was viewed as a shining example of how such work should be done. Jo loved her job and planned to learn Somali.

All those plans crumbled within the space of 14 days. One day in May, a student told Jo that another student had physically abused a child in the crèche run at the centre. Jo knew she should report this allegation so it could be investigated, but the difficulty was that the accused student was the sister of Mama’s manager – the person she should notify. Jo sought advice from a trusted senior colleague who was on secondment to another organisation. He advised her to see the manager, which she did later that day. At this point everything was happening in line with standard child protection practice and there was no reason for Jo to fear any consequences.

What happened next plunged her, and all the others involved, into a Kafkaesque saga that, but for a last-minute twist in the tale, would have ended up in the Court of Appeal.

The manager decided to investigate the allegation herself, without any reference to social services despite the conflict of interest. When the manager asked the student who had originally made the allegation, the student denied having said anything. The manager then concluded that Jo had invented the whole thing and within days Jo was summarily dismissed with no right of appeal.

The dismissal itself was shocking enough but what followed was a nightmare. The manager withheld wages and holiday pay; refused to pay for books Jo had obtained for the women at the centre; and, when the case was listed for an employment tribunal, circulated a letter to community organisations disparaging Jo’s integrity and ability.

Jo was advised she had a strong claim under the whistleblowing legislation but by the time a solicitor had submitted the claim we had racked up bills of more than £1,000. At a time when Jo was suffering severe stress and unable to take on alternative work, we were left with the choice of dropping the claim or pursuing it without legal help. The first would have allowed the employer to get away with disgraceful conduct; the second was a huge challenge.

The result was that I represented Jo at the hearing myself, after a barrister we knew read through my arguments and made some helpful suggestions. Our experience of Mama’s legal team was not good: perhaps naively, we had hoped they would bring common sense to the table and facilitate an early settlement. Whether it was because we didn’t have lawyers or because Mama’s case was being run by the manager and not the charity, the lawyers took every possible point before and during the three day hearing - almost as if the sole purpose was to grind Jo down. Their case was that on this one occasion, out of the blue, Jo had taken it on herself to fabricate allegations of child abuse because she had a grudge against the manager’s sister. However Jo’s integrity and honesty survived unscathed and the tribunal found in her favour and went on to award her more than £12,000.

Our relief was short-lived. Mama then appealed, claiming that even though Jo had been dismissed for making a protected disclosure, because Jo had been there less than a year and as the manager believed that Jo had made the allegation up, the whistleblowing protection shouldn’t apply. Faced with such an Alice-in-Wonderland argument, we approached Public Concern at Work, who recognising the importance of the case, commented on my submissions and sat behind me at the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Though I won the case there it was not the end of the process, as Mama persuaded a more senior judge that they should be given another chance to challenge the decision - this time in the Court of Appeal.

At the same time we had to take county court action to retrieve those parts of the tribunal award that were not in dispute, as the charity was still refusing to pay up. We were determined to continue, but we felt out of our depth in arguing the case at the Court of Appeal. After much agonising, I decided – encouraged by PCAW, and with Jo’s agreement – to continue.

Two weeks before the hearing, a former colleague at the charity said its manager wanted to apologise to Jo. After everything we had experienced, it was difficult not to feel cynical. But the meeting was possibly the biggest surprise of all. Jo’s former boss apologised, unprompted and in full. She explained that she knew she had been wrong all along, but couldn’t find a way out. And because the charity no longer had the money to pay the sums awarded by the tribunal, she offered to pay an agreed amount out of her own pocket.

We could have rejected that apology, and pressed for the full amount. But we felt that even after all that had happened, the opportunity of a genuine reconciliation should be taken: that it was better to accept the apology and the compensation and to move on.

The door is now open for Jo to work again with Somali women, should the opportunity arise; her reputation is not only intact but has been enhanced.

So what did we learn? Here are a few thoughts for anyone else thinking of taking a whistleblowing case to a tribunal without legal assistance:

  • Even if you have a strong case, do not underestimate the intransigence of an ex-employer.
  • Acting without legal representation can be seen as vulnerable by the other side. While the tribunal and courts did what they could to ensure fair play, they can only do this at the hearings.
  • Never underestimate lawyers’ capacity for making the simple complex. The law on public interest disclosures is relatively straightforward; but dealing with their lawyers’ arguments was like untangling spaghetti.
  • When people tell you the legal system is slow, they really mean it.
  • Taking Jo’s case to three separate hearings and preparing for a fourth took its toll on our family life and caused Jo immense stress.
  • Don’t underestimate your own abilities. Having done it, I believe any reasonably literate and moderately articulate person can present a case competently. Just be clear about the issues, be courteous, know the facts and get whatever assistance you can. Use Google and PCaW’s website.
  • Take time to know your case inside out. If you’re clear about the facts you have a huge advantage. Few lawyers will put in the hours you will if you’re handling your own case.
  • Don’t overcomplicate the issue. The disadvantage of knowing your case inside out is that you’ll want to include everything. Listen out for the issues the tribunal wants to focus on and avoid righteous indignation.
  • There is someone out there who can help: the local law centre, a friend who is a lawyer, the solicitor who drafted Jo’s initial claim, PCaW – and also friends who may not know the law but will give you support and encouragement
  • Always look for a solution. The pursuit of justice can take a heavy toll, and it’s easy to become blinkered in fighting for what’s right. There’s a time in any conflict to draw the line; in our case, despite all that had gone before, we knew it was right to accept the apology and settlement that was offered. We don’t regret it.

Julian Dobson

For a fuller account of the chronology and the facts of the case of The Trustees of Mama East African Women’s Group v Dobson click here.