Can Charity Trustees Be Protected as Whistleblowers? A Significant Case Reopens the Debate
Rethinking Whistleblower Protection for Trustees
In October 2024, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) delivered a ruling that is drawing fresh attention to the position of charity trustees under UK whistleblowing law. The case — Dr Nigel MacLennan v The British Psychological Society— highlights important questions about how the legal definition of a “worker” should be applied to unpaid governance roles.
While no final determination has been made, the case is already prompting wider discussion about speak-up culture, trustee responsibilities, and the evolving expectations of board-level governance.
Background to the Case
Dr Nigel MacLennan served as a trustee and President-Elect of the British Psychological Society (BPS). After raising concerns about governance matters, he was expelled from his position. He brought a claim for whistleblower detriment under the Employment Rights Act 1996, but the Employment Tribunal initially found that he was not a “worker” and therefore not entitled to protection.
The EAT overturned that decision. It found that the tribunal had adopted too narrow an approach by focusing almost exclusively on the fact that Dr MacLennan was unpaid. The appeal court confirmed that the test for “worker” status under section 230(3) of the ERA requires a more holistic assessment — including the responsibilities of the role, the nature of the engagement, and whether it meets the statutory threshold.
Human Rights Considerations
In its ruling, the EAT also referenced the Human Rights Act 1998, noting that automatically excluding trustees from whistleblower protection could raise potential concerns under Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 14 (non-discrimination). While the court did not reach a final conclusion on these points, it indicated that such arguments should be properly considered when the case returns to tribunal.
What This Means for Organisations
Although the case has been remitted for fresh consideration, the issues it raises are relevant for any organisation that relies on governance structures involving trustees, committee members, or other unpaid roles.
Some key questions include:
Could voluntary or non-executive roles qualify for whistleblower protection in specific contexts?
How should organisations support trustees or board members who raise serious concerns?
Is your speak-up framework inclusive of those in governance roles, not just employees?
These are not just theoretical issues. Public expectations around accountability and ethical leadership are increasing — and so is regulatory scrutiny.
Governance and Culture Under the Spotlight
Legal clarity is important — but integrity is tested in how organisations respond when concerns are raised from within.
This case offers a timely reminder to review how your organisation handles reports of misconduct or governance failure, especially when they come from people in senior or non-executive positions.
Areas worth reassessing include:
Who is covered by your whistleblowing policy and procedures
Whether trustees and non-executives are aware of how to raise concerns
How retaliation risks are managed, regardless of employment status
The tone set by leadership around accountability and internal challenge
Read the Judgment
You can read the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s decision in full here:
👉 Dr Nigel MacLennan v The British Psychological Society – 2024 EAT 166
Support with Speak-Up Culture and Governance
At EthicsVision, we support organisations across sectors to build effective whistleblowing frameworks, strengthen governance culture, and deliver tailored training for boards, senior leaders, and HR teams.
📩 Contact us to find out how we can help you improve your organisation’s approach to integrity, accountability, and internal reporting.
