Agency worker's whistleblowing claim fails: photographs and mistaken firearms conviction not enough
An agency worker who took photographs of alleged health and safety breaches and had a job offer revoked over a mistaken firearms conviction has lost his whistleblowing claim. The tribunal found he did not make a protected disclosure.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #agency-worker
- #whistleblowing
- #health-and-safety
- #photographs
- #firearms-conviction-mistake
- #job-offer-withdrawn
Key facts
- The claimant worked as an agency worker for the respondent from October 2019.
- In January 2021, the claimant took photographs of alleged health and safety breaches on the production line.
- The claimant sent an email about his concerns to a former HR employee who had already left the company.
- The claimant applied for permanent roles but was rejected multiple times.
- In November 2021, a decision to offer the claimant a permanent role was revoked after concerns were raised about his conduct and an alleged firearms conviction (which was a case of mistaken identity).
- The claimant's assignment was terminated on 26 November 2021.
Timeline
-
Started as agency worker
The claimant began working for the respondent as an agency worker via KFM Recruitment Limited.
-
Photographs issue raised
A crew leader reported that the claimant had been taking photographs of colleagues on the shop floor.
-
Discussion with Chris Walker
The claimant allegedly discussed health and safety concerns with crew leader Chris Walker, but the tribunal found this did not happen.
-
Removed from Bosch line
Naomi Kilner asked the agency not to send the claimant back to the Bosch line due to distractions.
-
Email to Tracy Bowler
The claimant sent an email detailing health and safety concerns to Tracy Bowler, who had already left the company.
-
Job offer considered
The respondent considered offering the claimant a permanent role, but the decision was revoked the next day.
-
Job offer revoked
After a meeting, the respondent decided not to proceed with the offer due to concerns about the claimant's conduct and an alleged firearms conviction.
-
Assignment terminated
The respondent asked the agency to stop assigning the claimant to its site.
-
Forwarded email to HR
The claimant forwarded his January email to the HR department, asserting whistleblowing.
-
Acas Early Conciliation started
The claimant commenced Acas Early Conciliation.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's actions — taking photographs and sending an email about health and safety concerns — amounted to protected disclosures under whistleblowing law, and if so, whether those disclosures led to his dismissal or detrimental treatment.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims, including automatically unfair dismissal for whistleblowing and detriment claims.
The key reasons:
- The email sent to a former HR employee who had already left the company did not qualify as a protected disclosure because it was not made to the right person.
- The alleged conversation with a crew leader about health and safety concerns was not found to have happened.
- The job offer was revoked due to concerns about the claimant's conduct and a mistaken belief about a firearms conviction, not because of any whistleblowing.
- No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- To qualify as a protected disclosure, you must raise your concern with the right person — such as your employer, a prescribed regulator, or a legal adviser — not someone who has left the organisation.
- Taking photographs of workplace issues may not automatically count as a disclosure; you need to clearly communicate your concern in a way that shows you believe it is in the public interest.
- A mistaken belief about a criminal record can be a legitimate reason for withdrawing a job offer, as long as it is genuinely held and not a pretext for retaliation.
- Agency workers with short service may find it harder to prove unfair dismissal, especially if the reason for termination relates to conduct rather than whistleblowing.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights the importance of following proper channels when raising health and safety concerns. The claimant, an agency worker with about two years' service, took photographs of what he believed were safety breaches on the production line. He then sent an email detailing his concerns to a former HR employee who had already left the company. The tribunal found that this did not amount to a protected disclosure because the recipient was no longer employed by the respondent, and the email was not sent through the company's established reporting procedures.
The claimant also alleged that he had discussed his concerns with a crew leader, but the tribunal did not accept this evidence, noting concerns about his credibility. The case underscores that tribunals will scrutinise whether a worker has genuinely raised a concern in a way that qualifies for whistleblowing protection.
What the respondent could have done differently
While the respondent ultimately succeeded in defending the claim, the case might have been avoided with clearer communication. The mistaken belief about a firearms conviction was later discovered to be an error, but by then the job offer had been revoked. Employers should verify such information thoroughly before making decisions that affect a worker's career. However, the tribunal accepted that the respondent acted in good faith based on the information available at the time.
Why this result matters
For agency workers, this case is a reminder that whistleblowing protection is not automatic — it depends on how and to whom the concern is raised. Simply taking photographs or sending an email to the wrong person may not be enough. The decision also confirms that a mistaken belief about a criminal record can be a legitimate reason for withdrawing a job offer, provided it is not a cover for retaliation. Overall, the case shows that tribunals will look at the substance of the employer's reasoning, not just the outcome.
Similar cases
Constructive dismissal claim dismissed as too late: no medical evidence for delay
A former kitchen designer's constructive unfair dismissal claim was thrown out after he filed it four months late, with the tribunal finding he could have acted sooner despite seeking advice.
Whistleblowing constructive dismissal claim fails: tribunal finds no evidence of detriment
A former employee who resigned and claimed constructive dismissal for whistleblowing and health and safety reasons has lost her case after the tribunal found no evidence of detriment or dismissal for those reasons.
Mechanical design engineer loses redundancy, whistleblowing and age discrimination claims
A mechanical design engineer with two years' service failed to prove his redundancy was a sham, with the tribunal rejecting claims of whistleblowing, age discrimination and health and safety detriments. Only a conceded holiday pay award of £2,249.99 was made.
Warehouse assistant who refused to return over Covid fears loses whistleblowing claim
A part-time warehouse assistant who refused to return to work due to Covid-19 safety concerns has lost his claims of automatic unfair dismissal and detriment against the British Heart Foundation.