A job applicant brought a whistleblowing claim following an interview with the Council in respect of her complaint about financial irregularity. She claimed that this complaint was a protected disclosure (i.e. ‘whistleblowing’) and the refusal to hear her appeal against the rejection of her complaint was a detriment to her based on her status as a whistle blower.
Job applicants are not ‘workers’ for the purpose of the whistleblowing legislation, unless, for example, they are applying to an NHS employer. However, the claimant asserted that the extended definition of worker for whistle blowing purposes should be interpreted to include job applicants due to a previous Supreme Court ruling (Gilham v Ministry of Justice) which found that court judges are ‘office holders’ rather than workers for the purposes of statute, but they are entitled to whistle blower protection.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that held an external job applicant is not in a situation equivalent to that of an internal applicant, nor to external applicants in the NHS (who are included to protect those who raise issues of patient safety). Her status as a job applicant was not the reason for the alleged less favourable treatment and the status of job applicant was not an equivalent one to that of a court judge. Her whistle blowing claim therefore failed.
Whilst external job applicants as protected against discrimination based on a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, this case confirms that external job applicants, other than in very limited circumstances such as applicants applying for roles with the NHS, are not protected by the whistleblowing legislation.