Restaurant employee dismissed after raising furlough fraud concerns: unfair but not automatically unfair
A 9-year restaurant employee was unfairly dismissed after raising concerns about furlough fraud, but his claim for automatic unfair dismissal due to protected disclosure failed. The tribunal awarded £6,300 in compensation.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by the respondent for 9 years as a restaurant employee.
- The claimant's employment ended on 1 April 2021.
- The claimant alleged he was dismissed for making a protected disclosure about furlough fraud.
- The respondent disputed that it dismissed the claimant, claiming he resigned.
- The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and awarded compensation.
- The claimant's claim for automatic unfair dismissal due to protected disclosure failed.
Timeline
-
Employment ended
The claimant's employment with the respondent ended. The claimant sent a text saying he wanted to stop working and requested his P45.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented his claim to the tribunal, including an application for interim relief.
-
Interim relief hearing
Employment Judge Batten heard the interim relief application and dismissed it, finding the claimant unlikely to succeed.
-
Order for compliance
The tribunal issued an order requiring the respondent to comply with certain directions.
-
Strike out warning
The tribunal gave the respondent an opportunity to show why its response should not be struck out for non-compliance.
-
Response struck out
Employment Judge Slater struck out the respondent's response due to failure to comply with the tribunal's order.
-
Final hearing
Employment Judge M Butler heard the remaining claims. The respondent did not attend. The tribunal found in favor of the claimant on most claims.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employee was unfairly dismissed and whether the dismissal was automatically unfair because he made a protected disclosure about furlough fraud, as well as claims for unauthorised deductions, breach of contract, and holiday pay.
The outcome
The tribunal ruled that the employee was unfairly dismissed, but not automatically unfair due to a protected disclosure. The respondent's failure to comply with tribunal orders led to its response being struck out, and it did not attend the final hearing.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £2,700
- Compensatory award: £2,469.72
- Total: £6,300 (rounded from £5,169.72? Note: figures may not add exactly due to rounding, but total stated is £6,300)
Lessons & takeaways
- If you believe you were dismissed for whistleblowing, you must provide clear evidence linking the disclosure to the dismissal to succeed in an automatic unfair dismissal claim.
- Respondents who fail to comply with tribunal orders risk having their response struck out, leading to a default judgment.
- Even if a whistleblowing claim fails, you may still succeed in an ordinary unfair dismissal claim if the employer's process was flawed.
- Keep records of all communications about protected disclosures, as text messages and witness statements can be crucial evidence.
A whistleblowing claim that didn't stick, but unfair dismissal did
This case shows how a tribunal can separate different legal claims even when they arise from the same set of events. The employee, who had worked at the restaurant for nine years, alleged he was dismissed for raising concerns about furlough fraud. However, the tribunal found that his protected disclosure claim failed because he did not provide enough evidence to show that the disclosure was the reason for his dismissal.
What the employer could have done differently
The respondent, Red Fortuna Limited, trading as Ciao Baby Restaurant, made a critical mistake by failing to comply with tribunal orders. This led to its response being struck out, and it did not attend the final hearing. Had the employer engaged properly, it might have been able to argue that the employee resigned, as it claimed. Instead, the tribunal accepted the employee's version of events and found the dismissal unfair.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case highlights the importance of gathering evidence early, especially for whistleblowing claims. The interim relief application was dismissed because the employee could not show a 'pretty good chance' of success on the protected disclosure claim. However, the employee still succeeded in an ordinary unfair dismissal claim, demonstrating that even if a whistleblowing claim fails, other claims may succeed. It also serves as a warning to employers that ignoring tribunal proceedings can lead to a default judgment and significant compensation awards.
Similar cases
Unfair dismissal but 100% Polkey reduction due to workplace closure
A former employee was unfairly dismissed but received only limited compensation because the tribunal found he would have been fairly dismissed a month later when the workplace closed. Total award: £12,419.29.
Redundancy dismissal leads to £17,570 award for multiple employment rights breaches
A former employee of Duchy Farm Kennels Ltd was awarded £17,570.97 after being unfairly dismissed by redundancy, with the tribunal also finding unauthorised wage deductions, unpaid holiday pay, and failure to provide written particulars.
Dismissed after 12 weeks: redundancy, unpaid wages and holiday pay
A former employee was awarded over £10,700 after James Andrew Prams & Nurseries Ltd failed to pay redundancy, wages, notice pay and holiday pay following a redundancy dismissal.
Dismissed by redundancy without pay: employer's failure to respond leads to £45,000 award
Two former employees of Cheshiregate Property Services were awarded over £45,000 after the company failed to defend claims of redundancy pay, notice pay, and unpaid wages.