Exercise Manager made redundant after furlough concerns: unfair dismissal but whistleblowing claim fails
An exercise manager was unfairly dismissed when her redundancy appeal was not independently handled, but her claim that she was dismissed for raising concerns about working while furloughed did not succeed.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as Exercise Manager from 1 February 2018 until redundancy on 29 July 2020.
- The respondent's business suffered an 80% drop in revenue and two-thirds reduction in membership due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
- The claimant made several disclosures about working while furloughed, but only the disclosure on 26 March 2020 was found to be a protected disclosure.
- The claimant's role was made redundant as part of a cost-saving restructure, with the directors absorbing her duties.
- The appeal against redundancy was not handled independently and was flawed, rendering the dismissal unfair.
- The protected disclosure claim failed because the disclosure was not the reason for dismissal.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced employment as assistant Exercise Manager.
-
Promotion to Exercise Manager
Claimant promoted to Exercise Manager, reporting to the Exercise Director.
-
First alleged disclosure
Claimant told Mr Sharp she could not work while furloughed; Mr Sharp said he had 'found a way'.
-
Second alleged disclosure
Claimant refused to submit invoices for work done while furloughed and asked for written confirmation.
-
Third alleged disclosure
Claimant texted Mr Sharp that employed staff could not work while furloughed and proposed transitioning work to self-employed staff.
-
Fourth alleged disclosure
Claimant emailed about flexible furlough scheme and whether volunteers would be paid.
-
Fifth alleged disclosure
Claimant said staff could not continue to volunteer under flexible furlough; Mr Sharp said they could if no income generated.
-
Front of House duties removed
Claimant told she no longer needed to perform Front of House duties as the previous incumbent returned.
-
At risk of redundancy meeting
Claimant invited to meeting and informed she was at risk of redundancy.
-
Redundancy confirmed
After three consultation meetings, claimant was made redundant with 3 months' notice.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal heard by Rebecca Macleod; claimant raised whistleblowing for the first time.
-
Appeal rejected
Appeal outcome report rejected the appeal; investigation was limited and not independent.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy, and whether the dismissal or any detriment was because she made protected disclosures about working while furloughed.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed because the redundancy appeal was not handled independently and was flawed, rendering the dismissal procedurally unfair. However, the claim for automatic unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure failed, as the tribunal concluded that the disclosures were not the reason for dismissal. The claim for detriment also failed.
No compensation was awarded at this stage; the parties were encouraged to settle remedy privately. If not, a remedy hearing will be listed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are made redundant, ensure the appeal process is independent and thorough; a flawed appeal can render the dismissal unfair.
- To succeed in a whistleblowing claim, you must show that the protected disclosure was the reason for the dismissal, not just that it occurred before the dismissal.
- Employers should ensure that redundancy selection and appeal processes are fair and independent, especially when the employee has raised concerns.
- Keep clear records of any disclosures you make, including dates and responses, as this can help establish whether they are protected.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights the importance of a fair redundancy process, particularly the appeal stage. The claimant, an exercise manager with four years' service, was made redundant after her employer's gym business suffered an 80% drop in revenue due to the Covid-19 pandemic. While the redundancy itself was genuine, the tribunal found that the appeal was not handled independently and was flawed, making the dismissal unfair.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer, ESPH Healthcare Limited, could have avoided the unfair dismissal finding by ensuring the appeal was conducted by someone independent and that the process was thorough. Instead, the appeal was handled by a director who had been involved in the redundancy decision, and the investigation was limited. A fair appeal might have saved the employer from an adverse finding.
Why the result matters for similar claims
For employees facing redundancy, this case shows that even if the redundancy is genuine, a flawed process can lead to a finding of unfair dismissal. However, it also demonstrates the difficulty of proving whistleblowing claims: the claimant's concerns about working while furloughed were protected disclosures, but she could not show they were the reason for her dismissal. Employees considering a whistleblowing claim should be aware that the timing of disclosures alone is not enough; they must be the cause of the detriment or dismissal.
Similar cases
IT manager dismissed in redundancy pool of one: whistleblowing claim fails
An IT Service Desk Manager with two years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy after being placed in a pool of one. His claims that the dismissal was due to protected disclosures about Covid-19 safety were rejected by the tribunal.
Dismissed for redundancy after divorce talks: a hidden reason for unfair dismissal
A book-keeper and administrator was unfairly dismissed after her employer used redundancy as a pretext to end her employment following the breakdown of divorce settlement negotiations. The tribunal awarded £8,922.50.
Sports club managers dismissed without consultation: redundancy ruled unfair
Two joint managers of a sports club were unfairly dismissed when they were made redundant without any consultation, despite the club's dire financial situation. The tribunal also found they were owed unpaid wages and holiday pay.
Whistleblowing claim over covid safety fails: tribunal finds employer's actions were about cryptocurrency miners
A mechanical technician who raised covid-19 safety concerns was investigated for setting up cryptocurrency miners on site. The tribunal dismissed his whistleblowing claim, finding the investigation was about the miners, not his disclosures.