Middlesbrough Council Worker Faces Tribunal Over GDPR Breach Firing

Brian Foulger worked for Middlesbrough Council for 20 years, focusing on children’s safeguarding. He later became a senior transport officer. He was fired last July.

The dismissal followed a meeting last February, which included Clive Heaphy and another employee. They discussed a possible whistleblowing issue. This employee claimed race discrimination. Foulger attended the meeting representing the GMB union, along with another union representative.

Foulger then spoke with someone in HR at the council. He revealed, or implied, the whistleblower’s identity. The HR officer reported this. Foulger was then suspended. The council later fired him, accusing him of violating GDPR rules, which they deemed gross misconduct.

Foulger, 59 and from Stockton, is still being paid by the council. A ruling granted him financial relief, requiring them to continue his contract until his claim is settled. The hearing revealed Foulger helped with a 2019 audit that raised bridge concerns. He believed someone then targeted him and that he was treated unfairly, noting his 15-year union role.

Erik Scollay, who replaced Heaphy last November, made the decision on Foulger’s discipline. Scollay believed the information discussed at the meeting was sensitive and that Foulger was “guilty of a serious breach.” Scollay felt Foulger bypassed an agreed plan, said to be proposed by Heaphy.

During a call, the whistleblower’s identity emerged. Foulger did not end the call, which lasted 46 minutes. Scollay said many private things were likely discussed, saying that “Neither party should have maintained that conversation.” There was a dispute about Foulger’s authority, as the employee wasn’t in his union. Some questioned consent to share her data.

Neil Sharples, with the GMB, said Scollay decided to fire Foulger beforehand, a claim Scollay denied. Sharples also said the policy breach was unclear. Scollay admitted Foulger lacked the relevant GDPR policy and that it wasn’t discussed at the hearing. He also didn’t review Foulger’s record, which was without blemish.

Sharples argued the firing was unreasonable, but Scollay thought it was reasonable, citing shared data and confidentiality. He stated the dismissal wasn’t due to union work. Scollay opposed Foulger’s re-employment, which the tribunal considered. He cited lost trust after the incident.

Sam Gilmore said he assessed disciplinary options, which ranged from no action to training. Gilmore felt a hearing was needed, noting some issues in Foulger’s statement. Gilmore’s job was to decide the next step, but not to confirm misconduct. Gilmore stated that “highly confidential information had been shared”.

Sharples thinks Foulger vetted a potential grievance. Sam Healy, speaking for the council, did not agree. The hearing continues before Judge Kirti Jeram.