Trade union rep suing Middlesbrough council over unfair dismissal denies ‘gossip’ claim
Last updated 1st May 2025
A GMB trade union official who was sacked after being accused of disclosing confidential information in a telephone conversation has denied he was engaging in gossip and “venting off”.
Brian Foulger is claiming unfair dismissal after losing his job in July last year following a 20 year career with Middlesbrough Council.
Mr Foulger was one of two trade union representatives who attended a “special meeting” with former interim chief executive Clive Heaphy requested by unions to explore claims made by a whistleblower, a council officer who was also alleging racial discrimination, and potential next steps.
He later discussed matters raised at the private meeting with a HR official, which he said was legitimate trade union activity, only for her to report the call, triggering disciplinary proceedings against Mr Foulger who was suspended.
Former director of social care – and now council chief executive – Erik Scollay determined his actions translated to gross misconduct and were a breach of General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) policy with the identity of the whistleblower either revealed or inferred from what he was saying.
Mr Foulger, 59, from Stockton, continues to be paid by the council following a previous judge’s ruling which saw him granted interim financial relief with the local authority being ordered to continue his contract of employment until the determination or settlement of his claim.
Sam Healy, representing the council at the employment tribunal being heard in Middlesbrough, said the HR official considered what she was being told did not involve her role and she was placed in an unfair position.
Mr Healy said: “In the course of this conversation you got carried away and disclosed information you did not intend to give.
“The way to solve that was not to pick up the phone in the first place?”
Mr Foulger replied: “With hindsight yes.”
Mr Healy said: “It was not you performing your role as a trade union rep, it was you venting off and bringing up things with the officer that you should not have done.”
Mr Foulger said: “That was not the case.”
Mr Healy suggested that Mr Foulger had also breached the confidentiality of Mr Heaphy by disclosing what had been said at the meeting.
He said: “You deny that you were just gossiping about what had taken place?”
The claimant said “absolutely” and he was just seeking informal advice on the potential of a racial discrimination claim.
Mr Healy said: “You were excited about what Mr Heaphy had told you and you wanted to get it off your chest.”
Mr Foulger replied: “Not at all, I had no reason to do that.”
He agreed that what was disclosed was private and confidential, but “it was in the course of a private and confidential conservation with a member of HR” and “off the record” and he did not believe it would go any further.
‘Poked the bear’
The claimant said he believed he had “poked the bear too many times”, leading to his dismissal, although he said he previously had a good working relationship with Mr Scollay.
Mr Foulger said he had hoped to be restored to his substantive role at the council, working in the fostering team where he had been employed for ten years, and wanted to sit down with management and “put mistakes right”.
But Mr Healy said: “Because of what you said in that phone call, because you breached confidences in that phone call, it is going to be difficult for managers to trust you in the future?”
Mr Foulger said no and denied any breach of confidentiality or GDPR rules.
The claimant stated he had submitted two grievances in the past against the council and also alleged he had been “targeted and bullied” by his line manager.
He also described how, having been off sick from the local authority, he came back to work to find his previous role had been changed with “five minutes notice”.
Despite this, Mr Foulger added: “I don’t want to retire, I was very passionate about my previous role for the council.
“I am just extremely disappointed that I am sat here and gutted absolutely.”
Earlier the tribunal heard evidence from Councillor Luke Henman, for the respondent, who chaired a staff appeals committee which reviewed the decision to dismiss Mr Foulger and unanimously found it to be fair.
Neil Sharples, for the claimant, referred to it as a “sham exercise” during an exchange with Cllr Henman.
He said fewer than 5% of staff appeals were upheld at the council.
The councillor, who said he himself had been a union area organiser, said he tried to chair the committee objectively with the issues which brought about disciplinary proceedings being explored extensively.
Cllr Henman also said Mr Foulger had been “quite clear” in the appeal hearing that he had not been given consent to speak on the whistleblower’s behalf.
He said the HR officer was not someone who should have been party to the information discussed at the meeting in question.
Mr Sharples said it was “not uncommon” for representatives of different unions to stand in for each other and the fact that Mr Foulger was present at the meeting with Mr Heaphy and the woman, it was reasonable to expect that she had given her consent for him to speak to other parties.
Cllr Henman said he did not agree.
Employment Judge Kirti Jeram pointed out that there had not been a complaint from any of the individuals in the meeting about any information being shared.
The employment tribunal continues.