AN EXPERT in animal feedstuffs claims she was sacked by a Monmouth company because she was a whistleblower.

In her 12 months with Greencoat Limited, Dr Sara Matthews made more than 50 reports of alleged wrongdoing about some of the company’s activities.

She was sacked in December 2023, a month after she flagged up her concerns with National Advance Formulas (NAF), which produces nutritional feed supplements and which is the supplier to the British equestrian teams.

Dr Matthews said Greencoat Ltd, based on the Wonaston Road Industrial Estate in Monmouth, had headhunted her, after she had worked for them previously.

The company produces pet and equine feed supplements and Dr Matthews, who has a pharmaceutical background, formerly worked for NAF.

She has launched an employment tribunal claim for unfair dismissal and an application for financial support pending the full hearing, called interim relief. This claim for interim relief has been rejected by Employment Judge Laura Howden-Evans.

Interim relief is when a judge orders the company to either pay compensation or give the person their job back to prevent financial difficulty prior to the full employment tribunal. 

The tribunal was told that her alleged disclosures included concerns that there was a risk that green-lipped mussels could contaminate some feedstuffs, that non-approved additives were being used, that incorrect medical claims were being made in marketing material and that EU regulations were not being complied with.

She also raised concerns about a colleague’s alleged failure to protect other employees’ health and safety following a spillage.

“She said that in these disclosures she provided evidence of breaches that she believed could amount to criminal offences in respect of animal feed safety and food safety (where animal feed is being supplied to horses in countries where horses are consumed by humans),” said the Judge.

Dr Matthews, who admitted that she could be brusque,  said she could establish a link between her whistleblowing and her dismissal, but the company’s case is that it actually was due to her work performance, complaints from colleagues and her “general unhappiness with management”.

In rejecting her claim for interim relief, the Judge said that she had been employed less than two years she needed to prove that she had a good chance of winning her claim that the whistleblowing was the principal reason for her dismissal.

The full unfair dismissal claim will be held at a future date.