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.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant resigned and claimed constructive dismissal.
- The claimant alleged she made protected disclosures about health and safety.
- The claimant alleged she suffered detriments on three specific dates.
- The tribunal found no evidence of detriment or dismissal for whistleblowing.
- The tribunal found no evidence of dismissal for health and safety reasons.
Timeline
-
Alleged detriment
The claimant alleges she suffered a detriment on this date for making protected disclosures.
-
Alleged detriment
The claimant alleges she suffered a detriment on this date for making protected disclosures.
-
Alleged detriment
The claimant alleges she suffered a detriment on this date for making protected disclosures.
-
Hearing day 1
The substantive hearing commenced before a panel of three.
-
Hearing day 4
The hearing concluded and oral judgment was given.
-
Judgment sent
Written judgment was issued dismissing all claims.
-
Reconsideration application
The claimant applied for reconsideration.
-
Reconsideration refused
Employment Judge Ross refused the application.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was constructively dismissed automatically unfairly for making protected disclosures (whistleblowing) or for health and safety reasons, and whether she suffered detriments for those reasons.
The outcome
The tribunal found against the claimant on all claims.
- The claimant alleged she made protected disclosures about health and safety and suffered detriments on three specific dates in 2021, then resigned and claimed constructive dismissal.
- The tribunal concluded there was no evidence of any protected disclosure, no evidence of detriment for whistleblowing or health and safety reasons, and no constructive dismissal.
- No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you believe you have been dismissed for whistleblowing, you must show that you made a qualifying protected disclosure to your employer, and that the disclosure was a reason for your treatment.
- Constructive dismissal claims require you to resign in response to a fundamental breach of contract by your employer – simply feeling pressured is not enough.
- Tribunals will scrutinise the evidence carefully; unsubstantiated allegations of detriment or victimisation are unlikely to succeed without supporting documents or witness testimony.
- If you are a litigant in person, consider seeking advice early – the tribunal process can be complex, and having legal representation can help present your case effectively.
This case shows the high bar claimants face when alleging whistleblowing or health and safety constructive dismissal. The former employee resigned and claimed she had been forced out because she raised concerns about health and safety. She pointed to three specific dates in 2021 where she said she suffered detriments as a result.
However, the tribunal found no evidence that she had made any protected disclosures – that is, qualifying disclosures of information in the public interest. Without that foundation, the claims of detriment and constructive dismissal could not succeed. The panel also noted that the claimant did not raise any concerns during the hearing about the conduct of the respondent's representatives, which undermined later allegations of ridicule or unfair treatment.
What the employer did right
Trafford College Group robustly defended the claims, and the tribunal accepted that there was no link between any alleged disclosure and the treatment the claimant described. The employer's barrister was entitled to cross-examine firmly, and the tribunal did not find any inappropriate behaviour. The case highlights that employers who maintain proper records and can show a clear, non-retaliatory reason for their actions are well placed to defend whistleblowing claims.
What this means for similar claims
For anyone considering a whistleblowing or constructive dismissal claim, this case is a reminder that the burden of proof is on the claimant. You must be able to point to specific disclosures that meet the legal definition, and show that they were a material reason for your treatment. Without clear evidence, tribunals will not infer wrongdoing. The outcome also underscores the importance of raising concerns about hearing conduct at the time, rather than raising them later in a reconsideration application.
Similar cases
Live-in carer wins whistleblowing detriment claim but loses constructive dismissal case
A live-in carer with 32 years' experience won a whistleblowing detriment claim after raising safety concerns, but her constructive dismissal claim failed. She was awarded £1,775.
Whistleblowing protections for contract workers: detriments and dismissal upheld
A contract worker who raised health and safety concerns was subjected to detriments and dismissed. The tribunal found he was a worker, not an employee, but still protected under whistleblowing law.
Trainee car salesman loses whistleblowing claim over father's email to CEO
A trainee car sales executive with 2.5 months' service failed to prove he made a protected disclosure when his father sent an email to the CEO alleging fraud. The tribunal found the email was not a disclosure by the claimant and was not in the public interest.
Whistleblowing claim struck out: when the disclosure comes too late
Two warehouse operatives had their automatic unfair dismissal claims for whistleblowing struck out because the alleged breaches happened before they made their protected disclosure. The tribunal said the claims had no reasonable prospects of success.