by Philip Whiteley

As reported on this blog earlier this week, the confrontational, five-and-a-half-year whistleblowing litigation between equalities adviser Alison McDermott and Sellafield and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority last week featured a one-day costs hearing at Leeds Employment Tribunal, even though an earlier costs award against Ms McDermott had been ruled as unsafe by the appeal court in London.
The aim of this article is to point to the public interest in matters at the heart of this case that have been treated lightly by the presiding Tribunal judges, and ignored by the two defending organizations (Respondents).

There have been strong, conflicting claims on both sides throughout the case, many of which related to the way in which litigation was conducted. These were the subject of last week’s hearing. The two Respondents were represented by KC Deshpal Panesar, for Sellafield, and Rachael Levene, for the Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority, hired by the law firms DLA Piper and Pinsent Masons respectively.

In her address to the court, Ms McDermott reminded us of the public interest in her original report from 2018: the workplace culture at Sellafield. In her address, Ms McDermott reported that just 11% of people on the site strongly agreed that they could speak out without fear of reprisal.
I have seen employee opinion surveys from the site. The scores for the prioritization of safety as an issue are significantly higher than the scores for ability to speak out, indicating a serious gap between formal policy and managerial practices. This matters especially on a nuclear site.

Nearly 40 years ago, following the accident at the Chernobyl reactor in Ukraine, the then leader of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev recognized that a climate of fear both made such accidents more likely
and delayed a proportionate response. He instigated a policy of glasnost – freedom to speak up – as a direct consequence. This intuitive conclusion by Mr Gorbachev has since been vindicated by numerous workplace studies, which show that workplaces with low engagement and higher levels of fear are statistically more prone to accidents (the Gallup survey cited in this report, for example. the link is  Engaged Workplaces Are Safer for Employees (gallup.com)).
When I was talking with a press officer from the Office for Nuclear Regulation three years ago, in relation to the Ms McDermott case, he was unaware of this link, and assumed workplace culture and safety issues to be separate categories.

Rachael Levene, barrister for the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, appointed by Pinsent Masons, last week claimed that Ms McDermott was not a whistleblower, and not entitled to protection from detriment under Section 47(B) of the relevant legislation. This was a narrow legal argument, while members of the press and the public can observe that Ms McDermott’s central claim of a bullying and toxic culture and an HR leadership that was not on top of the issues, have been the conclusions separately made by several authoritative sources:
 A report by PricewaterhouseCoopers, commissioned by the Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority,
 The BBC, in an investigation reported in March 2021 (as a declaration of
interest, I referred this story to the BBC), Link:Sellafield nuclear site a ‘toxic mix of bullying and harassment’ – BBC News:
 The Guardian, in a report in December 2023, link  Sellafield nuclear site workers claim ‘toxic culture’ of bullying, sexual harassment and drugs could put safety at risk | Energy industry | The Guardian
 The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority’s own representatives, speaking under oath at the main hearing on 29 June 2021, agreeing with the PwC report’s conclusions that the HR function was ‘not fit for purpose’’, praising Ms McDermott’s contribution and expressing surprise at her sudden departure, as
reported on this blog at the time. Link: Nuclear industry leaders contradict each other in landmark whistleblowing case | Westminster Confidential (davidhencke.com)

This evidence was missing from the 2021 Tribunal ruling that found against Ms McDermott. There is no transcript available at an Employment Tribunal, which hampered her appeal. I attended that day and have short-hand notes.
There is a significant public safety risk attended to last week’s hearing. Sellafield’s management were making a very public declaration that if someone dares criticize them, even if they have a strong case, sufficiently well founded to reach the appeal court which reached a balanced verdict, they risk having their professional reputation trashed and suffering the threat of a life-altering financial penalty (the Respondents have bid to claim a total of £40,000 from the Claimant). It is likely that those low levels of freedom to speak out will have fallen even further following last week’s hearing.
The principal tactic of the Respondents has been to promote a pejorative narrative about the claimant, largely based on her response to their own legal tactics. For example, from Mr Panesar we heard him say that Ms McDermott had made a false complaint of fabricated evidence being used against her, in a claim that was then dropped on the eve of a hearing, and that this was unreasonable behaviour.

Sellafield letters unlawfully processed on personal computers – ICO

From Ms McDermott, we learned that the evidence in question consisted of three letters purporting to complain about her conduct while working at the Sellafield site. This evidence was not presented at the beginning of litigation. At the point of her dismissal, she was informed that the sole reason for termination of her contract was financial – an explanation also given to the governing body. After Ms McDermott discovered that some £17 million had been allocated to work of a similar nature, the
Respondents switched to one of competence, admitting it had lied about the initial reason. The three letters only appeared one year later. The letters were produced on personal PCs, contrary to company policy. They were later found by the Information Commissioner’s Office to have been unlawfully
processed, in contravention of data protection law (Judge Lancaster wrongly described the ICO ruling as mere criticism in the 2021 tribunal ruling.)

As reported on this blog before, the metadata was wiped on one of the letters while in possession of DLA Piper. Link Sellafield Broke Data Rules in Whistleblower Case – Byline Times

When restored, the metadata showed that the document had been open for three hours at the point of its creation, during which time phone records showed that the author took a long phone call from the HR director Heather Roberts, the third Respondent in the case.
The focus by Sellafield’s lawyers last week on the style of whistleblowing or protests made by Ms McDermott, ignoring or downplaying their substance, is straight from the anti-whistleblower playbook. It has been used by several NHS trusts to discredit medical professionals raising safety concerns – several of whom were watching last week’s proceedings in Leeds, either in person or by remote link.

In NHS cases such as the case of Dr Usha Prasad (link Unfit for Purpose: The NHS appeal panel that upheld the sacking of Dr Usha Prasad | Westminster Confidential (davidhencke.com)and of Martyn Pitman, the narrative concerns relations with colleagues and associated allegations; again, a highly personal attack on the style of reporting used by the whistleblower, ignoring the substance of their reports.(link

 Whistleblowing ‘cost Hampshire doctor dearly’ after he loses tribunal | Employment tribunals | The Guardian

Quite how such tactics have come to be regarded as acceptable by Tribunal judges is a matter of concern, and is likely to come under scrutiny now that the NHS Whistleblowers’ Group, numbering some 1,600 individuals, has been invited to assist the Thirlwall Inquiry into the Lucy Letby case.
Sellafield’s lawyers and press officers will point to the 2021 ruling which found in their favour – a judgement that got the ICO ruling wrong, ignored swathes of evidence and multiple failures of disclosure by the Respondents. There is a term in football: the ugly win. Sellafield et al won ugly. But this is not football, and the ugliness is a much bigger story than the win.