By Steven Bell

ANGUS COUNCIL has been ordered to pay four-figure compensation to a whistleblower who made allegations of impropriety in the planning department.

A tribunal sitting in Dundee unanimously ruled that Jane Fox, of Brechin Road in Kirriemuir, had suffered detriment as a result of speaking out.

However, it was noted that this did not mean they had taken the view that the experienced development control officer’s allegations were “correct or ultimately justified.”

A claim of unfair dismissal was also upheld by the tribunal after a 21-day hearing, and the total award against the council was over £6000. The council had claimed that it had given Miss Fox no cause to resign, and that her disclosures had been made not in good faith but as part of a campaign to discredit the planning department.

A council spokesman said, “While being disappointed with the outcome, the tribunal’s decision does not alter our view that the council behaved appropriately in this matter.”

The tribunal heard Miss Fox had initially fitted well into the department, but relationships with managers became increasingly strained and complaints of harassment were made.

In 2004 the claimant said she wanted to raise the “impropriety of decision making within the planning department,” and was asked by the council’s chief executive to provide details of the specific matters.

Miss Fox requested an investigation into alleged breaches of council rules, policies and procedures in relation to a number of planning applications.

The complaints were interpreted by the chief executive as being “effectively a complaint of corruption” alleging favouritism towards certain developers.

An independent investigation was ordered, and the conclusion reached was that she was not in good faith and had used whistleblowing procedures as part of a wider agenda to discredit management. She was suspended and resigned in July 2004.

In her submissions to the tribunal, Miss Fox said she had alleged impropriety in the handling of planning decisions, and this did not mean she was alleging corruption. The failure to follow the scheme of delegation was a breach of the council’s legal obligations.

The claimant, who had six years’ service when she left the authority, also pointed out that a report prepared following investigations by Audit Scotland was “not uncritical” of the council’s procedures.

The council contended that whistleblowing disclosures were only made when Miss Fox was facing disciplinary action, and that an examination of relationships would disclose a “vendetta” against certain individuals in the department.”

In its judgment issued yesterday the tribunal took the view that experienced planners in the department could supply clarification and justification for the vast majority of queried decisions.

However, it was ruled that comments made to Miss Fox by an official after the allegations were made were upsetting and amounted to detriment.

Compensation “at the lower end of the scale”—£2000—was considered appropriate.

The tribunal also found that she was entitled to resign, her confidence in her employers badly eroded, but her own actions materially contributed to the situation she found herself in.

Her award was reduced by 50% because of this. The total compensation for dismissal was £4118.