Can two negative references for a school caretaker amount to whistleblowing detriments?

In Mr M Steward v Oxfordshire County Council, the tribunal considered whether a school subjected a caretaker to detriments by providing two negative references after he raised health and safety concerns.

What happened?

Mr Steward joined the school as site manager in July 2023. In September and November 2023, he raised a range of health and safety concerns with the school business manager and headteacher. The concerns included fire safety issues, defective emergency lighting, inadequate maintenance, legionella risks, a lack of fire drills and various trip hazards. He later repeated and expanded on those concerns in correspondence sent to the Health and Safety Executive, the headteacher and the school business manager.  

During his employment, the headteacher raised concerns to HR about his conduct and performance. Although HR provided advice, the school took no action. 

On 5 December 2023, Mr Steward resigned after securing a role at another school. When asked to provide a reference, the headteacher gave a negative response, recording ‘strongly disagree’ against almost all of the criteria. The prospective employer subsequently withdrew its job offer. 

Shortly afterwards, following allegations from another member of staff that Mr Steward had said that he was going to ‘bring the school down’, the headteacher placed Mr Steward on garden leave for the remainder of his notice period. He then raised a grievance just before his employment ended. 

Mr Steward later secured a role at a different school. The headteacher provided the same reference, although on this occasion the appointment proceeded.

Mr Steward brought whistleblowing detriment claims, arguing that the two negative references, the handling of the grievance and being placed on garden leave were all because he had made protected disclosures about health and safety concerns. 

Employment Tribunal

Did Mr Steward make protected disclosures?

A protected disclosure arises where a worker discloses information with a particular person (usually their employer) which, in their reasonable belief, is made in the public interest and shows one or more of the following types of wrongdoing: criminal offence, breach of any legal obligation, miscarriage of justice, danger the health and safety of any individual, sexual harassment, damage to the environment, or the deliberate concealing of information about any of these.

The tribunal concluded that Mr Steward believed his disclosures showed breaches of health and safety obligations and other legal requirements. Although he did not always refer to specific legal provisions, he was not required to do so. The tribunal accepted that he genuinely believed the matters he raised tended to show health and safety failings. 

The tribunal also found that the disclosures were made in the public interest. In a school environment, health and safety concerns plainly affect more than the individual raising them. The school argued that Mr Steward raised the issues simply to cause trouble, but the tribunal found no evidence to support that suggestion. Instead, his disclosures were detailed, constructive and focused on identifying problems and proposing solutions. 

Did the references amount to whistleblowing detriments?

Under section 47B(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, workers have the right not to suffer a detriment because they have made a protected disclosure. A detriment occurs if a reasonable worker would, or might, consider the treatment they received was to their detriment. The worker must show a causal link between the protected disclosure and the treatment complained of. The disclosure must have played more than a trivial part in the employer's decision. 

The tribunal explained that it had not previously seen such a comprehensively negative reference. It portrayed Mr Steward as failing in almost every aspect of his role, yet the school had not treated the alleged shortcomings as sufficiently serious to justify action while he was employed. The tribunal considered this inconsistency significant. It concluded that the school's later description of his performance during the tribunal hearing was far more critical that its contemporaneous view and that the reference did not accurately reflect his performance. The tribunal therefore rejected the school's explanation for the negative reference. 

The tribunal then considered whether the reference had been influenced by Mr Steward's protected disclosures. The headteacher was aware of the disclosures and the tribunal concluded that they materially influenced the decision to provide the reference. The first reference therefore amounted to a whistleblowing detriment. 

The tribunal reached the same conclusion in relation to the second reference. It was identical to the first and the school provided no separate explanation for issuing it and so that also amounted to a whistleblowing detriment. 

Did the handling of the grievance and garden leave amount to whistleblowing detriments?

Mr Steward argued that the school's handling of his grievance amounted to a detriment. However, the tribunal found no evidence that those dealing with the grievance were aware of his protected disclosures and so there was no link between the disclosures and the way the grievance was handled. 

Mr Steward also argued that placing him on garden leave was a detriment. The tribunal rejected that claim, finding that the decision followed allegations that he had threatened to ‘bring the school down’ rather than anything connected with his protected disclosures. 

Compensation

While the judgment does not explain how the tribunal calculated the award, a separate remedy hearing awarded Mr Steward compensation of £32,942.46, comprising £15,000 for injury to feelings and £17,942.36 for financial losses.  

Key takeaways for colleges and schools

This case highlights the scope of whistleblowing protection. You must ensure that protected disclosures play no part in decisions affecting a worker. When a worker raises concerns that could amount to a protected disclosure, you should take care not to allow those concerns, or any frustration arising from them, to influence your judgment. Where a decision could be viewed as disadvantageous to the worker, you should be able to clearly explain and evidence why it was taken. The tribunal will look closely at the decision-maker's reasons and what actually motivated the action taken. 

The case is also a reminder that references must be fair, accurate and supported by contemporaneous evidence. You must not provide a reference maliciously or negligently, or give a misleading impression of an employee's performance, conduct or suitability for a role. References should not unfairly exaggerate concerns, omit important context or damage the employee's reputation. 

It is also important to remember that there are additional considerations in the education sector. As Keeping Children Safe in Education 2026 explains, when you provide references, you should ensure the information confirms whether you are satisfied with the applicant's suitability to work with children and provide the facts, not opinions, of any substantiated concerns or allegations that meet the harm threshold. You should not include information about concerns or allegations which are unsubstantiated, false, or malicious. 

Our newsletters

We publish monthly employment and education newsletters. If you'd like to be added to the mailing list, please let me know.