Journalist with 20 years' service dismissed for poor performance: tribunal upholds employer's decision
An employment tribunal has ruled that Bloomberg L.P. fairly dismissed a journalist with 20 years' service after he failed to meet performance targets under a second improvement plan. The claim for automatic unfair dismissal based on whistleblowing was rejected.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #long-service
- #performance-improvement-plan
- #qualitative-targets
- #timing-issue
- #conspiracy-theory
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a journalist from June 2000 until dismissal on 14 May 2020.
- The claimant's performance had been declining since 2015, with negative EVAL ratings and a first PIP in 2016.
- A second PIP was initiated on 30 August 2019 due to ongoing performance concerns.
- The claimant received a first written warning on 11 December 2019 and a final written warning on 13 February 2020.
- The dismissal decision was made by Ms Emma Ross-Thomas on 13 May 2020, based on the claimant's failure to meet PIP targets.
- The tribunal found no evidence that the claimant's whistleblowing disclosures played any part in the dismissal.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began working for Bloomberg L.P. in Sydney, Australia.
-
Reorganisation and new focus
Under new Editor-in-Chief John Micklethwait, Bloomberg News shifted focus to more impactful journalism, affecting the claimant's team.
-
First Performance Improvement Plan
Manager Lars Paulsson placed the claimant on a formal PIP due to concerns about the quality of his writing.
-
First written warning
Mr Paulsson issued a first written warning for insufficient improvement; the claimant appealed unsuccessfully.
-
First PIP ended
The claimant was taken off the first PIP after showing sufficient improvement.
-
New manager Reed Landberg
Reed Landberg became the claimant's manager in the European Gas, Power and Renewables Team.
-
2018 EVAL meeting
Mr Landberg gave the claimant a performance rating of 3.79 and set 2019 targets, including improving writing quality and attitude.
-
First Navex whistleblowing report
The claimant made a whistleblowing report via the Navex hotline, alleging retaliation and inadequate climate coverage.
-
Interim EVAL rating 4.62
Mr Landberg gave the claimant an interim rating of 4.62, placing him in the bottom 97th percentile, triggering a formal PIP.
-
Second PIP started
The claimant was placed on a second formal PIP with quantitative and qualitative targets.
-
First review period assessment
Mr Landberg concluded the claimant met most quantitative targets but failed qualitative targets, leading to a disciplinary meeting.
-
First written warning under second PIP
The claimant received a first written warning for failing to meet qualitative targets; he appealed unsuccessfully.
-
Final written warning
After a disciplinary meeting, the claimant was issued a final written warning for continued failure to meet PIP targets.
-
Final disciplinary meeting
Ms Emma Ross-Thomas chaired the meeting and decided to dismiss the claimant due to poor performance.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was verbally informed of his dismissal; confirmed in writing on 21 May 2020.
-
Appeal dismissed
The claimant's appeal against dismissal was dismissed by Mr B Bremner and Ms C Cotterill.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the journalist's dismissal was automatically unfair because the real reason was his whistleblowing disclosures about climate coverage, or whether it was a fair dismissal for poor performance.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim of unfair dismissal. It found that Bloomberg L.P. had a genuine belief in the journalist's poor performance, based on objective assessments and a thorough performance improvement plan (PIP) process. The whistleblowing disclosures played no part in the decision to dismiss. No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Long service does not automatically protect an employee from dismissal if performance consistently fails to meet required standards.
- Employers should follow a clear and documented performance management process, including setting objective targets and providing warnings, to defend against unfair dismissal claims.
- Employees who make whistleblowing disclosures should ensure they are protected disclosures in law; not all complaints about workplace issues qualify.
- A second performance improvement plan can be reasonable if the first one failed, provided it gives the employee a genuine opportunity to improve.
- Tribunals will scrutinise the timing of dismissal relative to whistleblowing, but if the employer can show a separate, genuine reason, the claim will fail.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates how employers can fairly manage long-serving employees whose performance declines over time. The journalist had worked for Bloomberg for 20 years, but from 2015 his performance ratings dropped. The company placed him on two formal performance improvement plans (PIPs), issued written warnings, and eventually dismissed him when he failed to meet qualitative targets. The tribunal accepted that the employer acted reasonably: it gave clear targets, regular feedback, and opportunities to improve.
What the losing side could have done differently
The journalist argued that his dismissal was actually retaliation for raising concerns about Bloomberg's climate coverage. However, the tribunal found no evidence linking the whistleblowing to the dismissal. The timing of the disclosures (mid-2019) coincided with the second PIP, but the performance concerns predated them. To succeed in a whistleblowing claim, an employee must show that the disclosure was a protected disclosure and that it was the principal reason for dismissal. Here, the employer's consistent focus on performance undermined that argument.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case reinforces that employers can dismiss for poor performance even after many years of service, provided they follow a fair process. It also highlights the importance of objective performance metrics and documented warnings. For employees, it is a reminder that whistleblowing claims require strong evidence of causation; simply making a complaint does not automatically protect against dismissal if there are genuine performance issues.
Similar cases
Trade promoter with 20 years' service unfairly dismissed but denied compensation over secret commission
The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair, but refused to award any compensation because after-dismissed evidence showed the employee had sought a secret commission from a customer.
Long-serving teacher unfairly dismissed after raising race discrimination grievance
A primary school teacher with 19 years' service was unfairly dismissed for 'irretrievable breakdown' after she raised a grievance alleging race discrimination. The tribunal also found she was victimised.
Machine Room Manager dismissed after blocking subordinate: conduct dismissal upheld
An Employment Tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a Machine Room Manager with 8 years' service who admitted physically blocking a subordinate during a workplace argument. No compensation was awarded.
22-year kitchen porter dismissed for sexual harassment: zero-tolerance policy upheld
A tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a kitchen porter with 22 years' service after he whispered 'I wish I could impregnate you' to a colleague, following a previous warning about inappropriate comments.