Self-isolation pay owed but whistleblowing unfair dismissal claim fails
A personal assistant who was required to stay home after her son developed a cough was owed £110.79 in pay, but her whistleblowing unfair dismissal claim was rejected because the redundancy decision came before the protected disclosure.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Key facts
- The claimant was employed from 16 October 2018 to August 2020 as a Personal Assistant.
- In January 2020, the claimant discussed concerns about a lighting invoice and other matters with a colleague, Mrs Hall.
- The claimant was required to stay away from work in March 2020 after her son developed a cough, but she was ready and willing to work.
- The respondent decided to make the claimant redundant in July 2020, before any knowledge of the January conversation.
- The claimant was dismissed by letter without a prior meeting or appeal process.
- The claimant succeeded in a breach of contract claim for £110.79 for unpaid pay during the self-isolation period.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for Disability Initiative Services Limited as a Personal Assistant.
-
January meeting with Mrs Hall
Claimant discussed concerns about a lighting invoice and other matters with colleague Mrs Hall.
-
Claimant asked to stay home
Claimant's son developed a cough; respondent required claimant not to attend work. Claimant offered to work from home but was refused.
-
Furlough started
Claimant was furloughed on full hours.
-
Text message to Mrs Hall
Claimant expressed frustration about potential redundancy in a text to Mrs Hall.
-
Respondent considered redundancy
Mrs Brown consulted Croner Consulting about making the claimant redundant.
-
Informal call with Mrs Brown
Mrs Brown had an informal call with claimant about potential changes, but claimant did not understand she was at risk.
-
Dismissal letter sent
Respondent sent claimant a letter of dismissal by post and email, effective from August 2020.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented her claim to the Employment Tribunal.
-
Final hearing started
Three-day hearing commenced before Employment Judge T Brown.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal and alleged detriments were because of protected disclosures she made in January 2020, and whether she was entitled to pay for a period of self-isolation in March 2020.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claims of automatic unfair dismissal (whistleblowing) and detriment, but upheld a breach of contract claim for unpaid pay during self-isolation.
- The redundancy decision was made in May 2020, before the employer knew about the January conversation. Therefore, the dismissal was not because of a protected disclosure.
- The claimant was ready and willing to work during the self-isolation period in March 2020, but the employer required her to stay home. The employer could not avoid paying her normal pay by designating it as sick pay.
- Compensation: £110.79 for breach of contract (unpaid pay).
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are required to stay home by your employer (e.g., due to COVID-19 symptoms in your household), you are generally entitled to normal pay if you are ready and willing to work, unless you are actually incapable of work.
- A protected disclosure must be known to the employer before a dismissal decision is made to form the basis of an automatic unfair dismissal claim.
- Keep clear records of when you raised concerns and when the employer took decisions that affected you, as timing is critical in whistleblowing cases.
- Even if a whistleblowing claim fails, you may still have a separate claim for breach of contract if the employer withholds pay without justification.
When self-isolation isn't sick leave
This case highlights an important distinction between being required to stay home by your employer and being genuinely sick. The claimant, a personal assistant, was told not to come into work after her son developed a cough in March 2020. She offered to work from home but was refused. The employer treated this as sick leave and paid only statutory sick pay, but the tribunal found she was ready and willing to work – so she was entitled to her normal pay for that period.
The employer argued that COVID-19 regulations deemed self-isolating employees incapable of work, but the tribunal pointed out that regulation only applies for statutory sick pay purposes, not to contractual pay. If the employer prevents an employee from working, the employee still gets paid.
Why the whistleblowing claim failed
The claimant also argued that her dismissal was automatically unfair because she had made a protected disclosure about a lighting invoice in January 2020. However, the tribunal found that the redundancy decision was made in May 2020, before the employer knew about that conversation. The employer's witness, Mrs Brown, had consulted Croner Consulting about redundancy in May, and the dismissal letter followed in July. The tribunal accepted that the decision was already in motion before any disclosure came to light.
This is a common pitfall for employees: even if you have raised a genuine concern, you need to show that the employer's action was because of that concern. If the employer can point to a separate, legitimate reason (like redundancy) that predates the disclosure, the claim will fail.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer's handling of the redundancy was poor – no formal consultation, no meeting before dismissal, no appeal. But because the claimant had less than two years' service, she could not bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim. The whistleblowing route was her only option, and it failed on timing.
The employer also mishandled the self-isolation period. A simple decision to pay normal pay for those days would have avoided the breach of contract claim entirely, saving time and the £110.79 award.
Key takeaway for employees
If you are asked to stay home but are fit to work, make it clear in writing that you are ready and willing to work. If your employer refuses to let you work, you are generally entitled to your normal pay. And if you believe you have been dismissed for whistleblowing, gather evidence of when the employer knew about your disclosure – timing is everything.
Similar cases
Surveyor loses whistleblowing claim but wins notice pay after redundancy
A surveyor who argued he was dismissed for raising health and safety concerns about excessive driving has lost his automatic unfair dismissal claim, but won £1,500 for unpaid notice.
Apprentice ground worker wrongfully dismissed but damages limited by redundancy
An apprentice ground worker with 9 months' service was wrongfully dismissed for misconduct, but the tribunal limited his damages to 10 days' pay because he would have been made redundant within weeks.
Bar staff wins constructive dismissal claim after being ignored for months
A bar worker with 5 years' service was constructively dismissed after his employer failed to offer him any shifts following furlough. The tribunal found a fundamental breach of contract and trust.
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.