Drax’s former public affairs lead has accused the company of “misleading the public, government and its regulator” over its sourcing of wood for biomass pellets.
Rowaa Ahmar was employed by Drax in 2022 amid allegations in a BBC Panorama documentary it had sourced wood from environmentally important forests in Canada instead of using sawdust and waste wood.
Ahmar claims she was dismissed after raising her concerns via a letter to Drax’s chief executive, Will Gardiner.
The former top lobbyist has filed a claim against the FTSE 250 firm and Gardiner, as well as another executive, at an employment tribunal for worse treatment at work and unfair dismissal.
Drax rejects the allegations. It claims Ahmar “lost the trust and confidence of multiple colleagues” within weeks of starting her role and would have failed her probation if she hadn’t raised concerns.
“The claimant’s disclosures resulted in her being treated more favourably than she otherwise would have done,” Drax’s opening submission reads.
Ahmar claims the 2022 Panorama created a “level of chaos that I have never seen before.”
In her opening submission to court, she said: “In the weeks after the programme aired, as part of her work, the claimant received information that increasingly demonstrated that the allegations in the Panorama programme were correct and that Drax had been misleading the public, government and its regulator.”
“The claimant probed this issue to seek further detail and to confirm or clarify her worries about Drax’s conduct. These efforts confirmed her suspicions.”
Her investigation ultimately led to a chain of events that ended with her dismissal, Ahmar claimed.
She also alleges she was briefed on the findings of an interim report by KPMG in December 2022. The report found Drax had “misreported data to the regulator concerning the sourcing of unsustainable wood and that Drax in fact used unsustainable wood,” according to Ahmar.
Drax, however, claimed an independent investigation led by Edmund Williams KC found Ahmar had created a “maelstrom of chaos” during her tenuure in the public affairs team. It said she was “unwilling to accept any fault or make reasonable concessions.”
“Had the claimant not made protected disclosures in late 2022, she would have failed her probation on account of the breakdown in trust and confidence between her, her team, her line manager, her line managers’ manager and several other employees not connected to her team,” it added.