Mechanical design engineer loses redundancy, whistleblowing and age discrimination claims
A mechanical design engineer with two years' service failed to prove his redundancy was a sham, with the tribunal rejecting claims of whistleblowing, age discrimination and health and safety detriments. Only a conceded holiday pay award of £2,249.99 was made.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Mechanical Design Engineer from 26 November 2018 until 17 November 2020.
- The respondent restructured due to financial pressures, and the claimant's role was selected for redundancy.
- The claimant raised concerns about overheating in a prototype engine, alleging whistleblowing and safety issues.
- The tribunal found the claimant did not make protected disclosures because his belief in danger was not reasonable.
- The claimant's age discrimination claims failed as the respondent provided non-age reasons for all treatment.
- The respondent conceded the claimant was owed £2,249.99 net for outstanding holiday pay.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began work as a Mechanical Design Engineer at Federal-Mogul Controlled Power Limited.
-
Salary review excluded
Claimant did not receive a salary review due to a policy excluding Q4 starters.
-
Altercation with manager
Mr Muncey shouted and banged desk during a technical disagreement; HR intervened.
-
Voluntary pay cut offered
Claimant agreed to a 10% voluntary pay cut for a limited period.
-
Furloughed
Claimant placed on furlough until end of June 2020.
-
Email about high temperatures
Claimant emailed Mr Muncey reporting stator temperatures over 100°C above safe limit.
-
At risk of redundancy
Claimant informed his post was at risk and invited to consultation.
-
Speak-up complaint
Claimant sent a complaint alleging cover-up of safety issues and that redundancy was due to whistleblowing.
-
Dismissal
Claimant dismissed by reason of redundancy with pay in lieu of notice.
-
Judgment given
Tribunal dismissed all claims except holiday pay, which was conceded.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy, or whether the real reason was age discrimination, whistleblowing, or health and safety activities. It also considered whether he suffered detriments on those grounds and whether wages were unlawfully deducted.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the respondent's redundancy process was genuine and fair. The claimant's role in mechatronics was no longer required after a restructure driven by financial pressures.
Key reasons:
- The claimant's email about high stator temperatures was not a protected disclosure because his belief in serious danger was not reasonable given the context of prototype testing.
- Age discrimination claims failed as the respondent provided non-age reasons for all treatment, including the salary review exclusion and redundancy selection.
- The health and safety detriment claim failed as the claimant was not subjected to any detriment for raising safety concerns.
Compensation:
- Holiday pay: £2,249.99 net (conceded by respondent)
Lessons & takeaways
- For a whistleblowing claim to succeed, you must have a reasonable belief that the information you disclose tends to show a serious danger – subjective concern is not enough.
- Redundancy selections based on genuine business needs will be upheld if the employer follows a fair process, even if you disagree with the decision.
- Age discrimination claims require evidence that age was a factor – being older and selected for redundancy is not enough on its own.
- If you raise safety concerns at work, ensure they are clearly documented and that you can show you suffered a detriment as a direct result.
A genuine redundancy, not a cover-up
This case shows how tribunals approach claims where an employee believes their redundancy was a pretext for discrimination or retaliation. The claimant, a mechanical design engineer in his 60s, argued that his dismissal was driven by age bias and whistleblowing after he raised concerns about overheating in a prototype engine. However, the tribunal accepted the employer's evidence that the redundancy was genuine: the company was under financial pressure and his mechatronics role was no longer needed after a restructure.
What the employer did right
Federal-Mogul Controlled Power Limited followed a structured redundancy process, including consultation and considering alternative roles. The tribunal noted that the claimant was treated no differently from other at-risk employees. The employer also provided clear business reasons for the restructure, which the tribunal found credible. This highlights the importance of proper documentation and a fair procedure – even when the employee disputes the underlying business decision.
Why the whistleblowing claim failed
The claimant's main whistleblowing allegation was an email reporting stator temperatures 100°C above the safe limit. But the tribunal found that his belief in serious danger was not reasonable, because the temperatures were within the range expected for prototype testing and the engine was not in production. This is a key lesson: a protected disclosure requires an objectively reasonable belief in a serious risk, not just a genuine personal concern.
What this means for similar claims
Employees considering bringing multiple claims – here redundancy, age discrimination, whistleblowing, and health and safety – should be aware that each requires specific evidence. A genuine redundancy will defeat an unfair dismissal claim, and without a protected disclosure or evidence of age bias, the other claims will fail. The only success here was the conceded holiday pay, which was a straightforward contractual entitlement.
Similar cases
Healthcare assistant dismissed after Panorama expose: whistleblowing claim fails but holiday pay succeeds
A healthcare assistant who raised safety concerns at a hospital later shut down after a Panorama documentary was made redundant. The tribunal rejected her whistleblowing claims but awarded £115.60 for unpaid holiday pay.
Age discrimination in redundancy: 21-year worker awarded £11,400
A kitchen worker with 21 years' service was found to have been discriminated against on grounds of age when her employer failed to contact her about a redundancy. The tribunal awarded £11,400 including injury to feelings.
Group of former employees win claims for unpaid wages and holiday pay
A Leeds tribunal ordered NV Projects Ltd to pay a group of former employees for unauthorised deductions from wages, holiday pay, and failure to provide written statements. One employee also won a breach of contract claim for notice pay.
Café worker automatically unfairly dismissed for asserting right to written contract
A café worker with only six months' service was automatically unfairly dismissed after asking for a written contract. The tribunal awarded over £2,000 including injury to feelings for age discrimination.