Redundancy dismissal after protected disclosure: tribunal finds fair process
A showroom administrator with 8 years' service was dismissed by reason of redundancy after making a protected disclosure about GDPR breaches. The tribunal found the dismissal was fair and not automatically unfair.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #protected-disclosure
- #grievance
- #selection-process
- #alternative-employment
Key facts
- The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy on 30 October 2020.
- The claimant had made a protected disclosure on 27 November 2019 regarding GDPR breaches.
- The claimant's grievance against Mr Doyle was upheld in part and against Mr Smith was upheld in full.
- The claimant applied for the new TCCO role but was unsuccessful; the other candidate scored higher.
- The TCCO role was later withdrawn and the successful candidate was also dismissed.
- The claimant did not apply for any other roles, including a TCCO vacancy at Twickenham.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working as a Showroom Administrator at North Harrow Showroom.
-
Grievance raised against Mr Doyle
Claimant raised a grievance alleging threatening and abusive behaviour by Mr Doyle and victimisation.
-
First protected disclosure
Claimant disclosed information about GDPR breaches involving customer data being shared with foot canvassers.
-
Second alleged disclosure
Claimant disclosed letters addressed to Mr Doyle and his son at the showroom, suggesting they lived there.
-
Grievance outcome
Mr Goult upheld the grievance against Mr Doyle in part and against Mr Smith in full.
-
Redundancy announcement
Claimant was informed that her role would be made redundant and invited to apply for new TCCO roles.
-
Interview for TCCO role
Claimant interviewed for the TCCO role at Harrow; scored 40/60 against the successful candidate's 45/60.
-
Notice of termination
Claimant received a letter terminating her employment on grounds of redundancy, effective 16 November 2020.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal heard by Mr Wigley; grievance details not provided to him; appeal dismissed.
-
Effective date of termination
Claimant's employment ended, with payment in lieu of notice for the remaining notice period.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal was automatically unfair because the reason or principal reason was her protected disclosure, or whether it was a fair redundancy dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's claims for unfair dismissal and detriment.
- The tribunal found that the claimant made a protected disclosure on 27 November 2019 regarding GDPR breaches, but the principal reason for dismissal was redundancy, not the disclosure.
- The redundancy selection process was fair: the claimant applied for the new TCCO role but scored lower than the successful candidate (40/60 vs 45/60). The role was later withdrawn and the successful candidate was also dismissed.
- The claimant did not apply for other roles, including a TCCO vacancy at Twickenham.
- No compensation was awarded as the claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Making a protected disclosure does not automatically make a subsequent dismissal unfair if there is a genuine redundancy situation and a fair process.
- Applying for alternative roles during redundancy is crucial; failing to do so can weaken a claim that the employer failed to find suitable alternative employment.
- Employers should ensure that decision-makers in redundancy processes are not influenced by previous grievances, but a fair scoring process can still be upheld.
- Tribunals will scrutinise whether the protected disclosure was the principal reason for dismissal; if the redundancy is genuine, the claim is likely to fail.
A redundancy dismissal after raising concerns
The case shows how a redundancy process can be fair even when the employee has previously raised serious concerns. The claimant, a showroom administrator with 8 years' service, had made a protected disclosure about GDPR breaches and had also raised a grievance against her managers. When the Covid-19 pandemic led to a restructuring, her role was made redundant. She applied for a new TCCO role but was unsuccessful, and the role was later withdrawn.
What the employer did right
Anglian Windows Ltd conducted a genuine redundancy exercise with a clear scoring process. The claimant scored lower than the other candidate, and the tribunal accepted that the decision was based on objective criteria. The employer also offered alternative roles, though the claimant did not apply for all of them. The tribunal noted that the grievance and disclosure did not taint the process, as the decision-maker was not the same person who handled the grievance.
Why the result matters
This case reinforces that a protected disclosure does not give blanket protection against redundancy. If the employer can show a genuine redundancy situation and a fair selection process, the dismissal will be fair. Employees who have made disclosures should still engage fully with the redundancy process, including applying for suitable alternative roles, to protect their position.
Similar cases
Business Development Manager dismissed after raising grievance: redundancy or retaliation?
A tribunal found that a Business Development Manager was unfairly dismissed because the real reason was his grievance, not redundancy. The case highlights the risks of dismissing a worker who has raised concerns.
Interim relief refused: redundancy decision made before protected disclosures
A senior contracts attorney lost her bid for interim relief after the tribunal found her redundancy was decided before she made protected disclosures about sanctions risks. The claim was dismissed.
Care worker resigned after 'so bipolar' comment and sudden role change: constructive dismissal claim allowed to proceed
A care assessment officer who was told she was 'so bipolar' and had her role changed with less than 24 hours' notice has been allowed to add protected disclosure claims to her constructive dismissal case.
Attendance Officer dismissed in restructure: redundancy process upheld despite grievances
A tribunal has ruled that an Attendance Officer with 10 years' service was fairly dismissed by Wokingham Borough Council and LDBS Frays Academy Trust following a redundancy selection process, rejecting claims of race discrimination and unfair dismissal.