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.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as IT Service Desk Manager from April 2018 until dismissal on 4 November 2020.
- The claimant made a protected disclosure on 20 March 2020 by emailing HR about being required to work in the office despite health concerns.
- The respondent was unaware of the protected disclosure at the time of the decisions to furlough and dismiss the claimant.
- The claimant was placed on furlough on 3 April 2020 due to reduced workload and the respondent's financial difficulties.
- The claimant was selected for redundancy in a pool of one because his role was considered unique and not interchangeable with other IT staff.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was for redundancy and was fair.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for Keltbray Ltd as IT Service Desk Manager in Esher office.
-
Annual leave cancelled
Ms Pretorius cancelled all IT department leave due to Covid-19 urgency; claimant's leave for 19-20 March was cancelled.
-
First protected disclosure (PD1)
Claimant emailed HR complaining about cancelled leave and being required to work in the office, referencing colleagues with coughs.
-
Lockdown announced
UK Prime Minister announced lockdown; claimant texted Ms Pretorius asking if they were required in the office.
-
Conversation with manager (PD3)
Claimant told Ms Pretorius he was unhappy and mentioned contacting authorities; tribunal found this did not amount to a protected disclosure.
-
Sister contacted HSE (PD4)
Claimant's sister, unbeknownst to him, contacted the Health and Safety Executive about working conditions.
-
Email to Besicom (PD5)
Claimant emailed the House of Commons Business and Energy Industrial Strategy Committee about being required to work in the office.
-
Furlough letter sent
Respondent sent claimant a letter informing him he would be on furlough from 6 April 2020.
-
At risk of redundancy
Claimant was told he was at risk of redundancy.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed for making protected disclosures about workplace safety during the pandemic, or whether the dismissal was a fair redundancy.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that the claimant was genuinely redundant due to reduced workload and financial difficulties caused by Covid-19. The selection of a pool of one was reasonable given the unique nature of his role.
The tribunal also found that the respondent was unaware of the protected disclosures at the time of the furlough and redundancy decisions, so there could be no causal link between the disclosures and the dismissal. The whistleblowing and detriment claims therefore failed.
No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers can select a redundancy pool of one if the role is genuinely unique and not interchangeable with others.
- Protected disclosures only protect against detriment or dismissal if the employer is aware of them and acts because of them.
- A genuine redundancy situation, properly handled, can be a fair reason for dismissal even if the employee has raised concerns.
- Short service (under two years) may limit the scope of unfair dismissal claims, but this claimant had sufficient service to bring a claim.
A redundancy decision during the pandemic
This case shows how a genuine redundancy situation can override an employee's concerns about whistleblowing, provided the employer follows a fair process. The claimant, an IT Service Desk Manager, was furloughed in April 2020 as the company's workload dropped due to Covid-19. When it became clear his role was no longer needed, he was placed in a pool of one and dismissed.
The tribunal accepted that the respondent, Keltbray Ltd, had a diminishing need for the claimant's work. His role was unique – he was the only IT Service Desk Manager – so it was reasonable not to pool him with other IT staff who did different jobs. The company also carried out a fair selection process and offered an appeal.
Why the whistleblowing claim failed
The claimant argued he was targeted for raising health and safety concerns about working in the office during lockdown. However, the tribunal found that the managers who decided to furlough and dismiss him were unaware of his emails and calls to HR and external bodies. Without knowledge, there could be no link between the disclosures and the decision to dismiss.
This is a key point for employees: a protected disclosure only gives you legal protection if the employer knows about it and acts because of it. Here, the redundancy was driven by business needs, not retaliation.
What this means for similar claims
For employees, this case is a reminder that a genuine redundancy can be a fair dismissal even if you have raised concerns. For employers, it shows that a pool of one can be justified where roles are not interchangeable, and that a lack of awareness of any disclosures can defeat a whistleblowing claim. The tribunal also noted that the claimant's short service (two years) meant the employer's duty to act reasonably was less onerous than for a long-serving employee.
Similar cases
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.
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.
Barman dismissed after furlough dispute: whistleblowing claim rejected, but unpaid wages awarded
A barman who claimed he was dismissed for raising health and safety concerns during the pandemic lost his unfair dismissal case, but won over £3,200 for unpaid wages, notice pay and holiday pay.
Whistleblowing claims dismissed: council's breakdown of trust was genuine
A Community Development Manager who claimed she was dismissed for whistleblowing lost her case. The tribunal found the council's decision was due to an irretrievable breakdown in working relationships, not her protected disclosures.