Whistleblower dismissed for raising furlough fraud and safety concerns: £12,716 award
A support worker who raised concerns about furlough fraud and service user safety was dismissed after her employer lost trust in her. The tribunal awarded £12,716.03, including an ACAS uplift for failing to follow the Code.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Support Worker and later Team Leader from 1 April 2019.
- She raised concerns about service user safety and potential furlough fraud to the SART team on 31 March 2020.
- Her disclosures were inadvertently forwarded to the second respondent, who lost trust in her.
- She was blocked from work emails, subjected to sarcastic comments, and later dismissed.
- The tribunal found the disclosures were protected and the reason for dismissal and detriments.
- The claimant was awarded £12,716.03 including a 25% ACAS uplift.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began work as Support Worker for Vineyard Project Ltd.
-
Promotion to Team Leader
Claimant promoted to Team Leader, overseeing support workers and maintenance.
-
Pregnancy discovered
Claimant discovered she was pregnant and informed management.
-
Eviction incident
Claimant was pushed by a service user during an eviction, causing stomach pains.
-
Request to work from home
Claimant requested to work from home due to pregnancy and COVID-19; request refused.
-
Furlough started
Claimant placed on furlough; later asked to work while furloughed, which she refused.
-
Protected disclosures made
Claimant disclosed concerns about furlough fraud and service user safety to SART officer Mr Hogg.
-
Email access blocked
Claimant's work email access was blocked after disclosures were forwarded to Mr Kingaru.
-
Meeting request for breach of contract
Claimant invited to a meeting to discuss alleged breach of contract; she requested written details but received no response.
-
Told no job available
Mr Kingaru informed claimant her role was no longer available due to COVID-19, but real reason was loss of trust.
-
Dismissal date
Effective date of termination as per P45; claimant was not formally notified of dismissal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant made protected disclosures about furlough fraud and health and safety concerns, and if those disclosures were the reason for her dismissal and detrimental treatment.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claims for whistleblowing dismissal and detriment against Vineyard Project Ltd. It found that the claimant's disclosures to a SART officer about potential furlough fraud and service user safety were protected, and that the employer's loss of trust in her was directly linked to those disclosures.
Compensation was awarded as follows:
- Basic award: £446.88
- Compensatory award for loss of wages and pension: £2,225.94
- Injury to feelings: £7,500.00
- ACAS uplift (25%): £2,543.21
- Total: £12,716.03
Lessons & takeaways
- Whistleblowing disclosures can be made internally to a prescribed body, and the employer's reaction (such as blocking email access) can be evidence of detriment.
- If an employer loses trust in an employee because of a protected disclosure, that is likely to be the reason for any subsequent dismissal, making it automatically unfair.
- Failing to follow the ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures can result in a 25% uplift on compensation.
- Employers should not treat a whistleblower differently from other employees, even if they feel the disclosures were unwelcome.
A whistleblower's story
This case shows how quickly an employer's attitude can change when an employee raises concerns. The claimant, a support worker and later team leader at a homeless support charity, made disclosures to a SART officer about potential furlough fraud and service user safety. Her email was forwarded to the director, who then blocked her access to work emails and made sarcastic comments. She was later told her role was no longer available due to COVID-19, but the tribunal found the real reason was the loss of trust caused by her disclosures.
The tribunal noted that the director's evidence was unreliable, with numerous inconsistencies. The claimant was not given a fair process: she was not formally notified of her dismissal and was effectively shut out of the workplace. The ACAS Code of Practice was not followed, leading to a 25% uplift on compensation.
What the employer could have done differently
Vineyard Project Ltd could have investigated the concerns properly and maintained professional communication. Instead, it reacted defensively, treating the whistleblower as a problem rather than a source of valuable information. A fair procedure, including a proper investigation and opportunity for the employee to respond, would have avoided the finding of unfair dismissal.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case reinforces that whistleblowers are protected from the moment they make a protected disclosure. Employers cannot simply 'lose trust' and dismiss; they must show that the disclosure was not the reason. The 25% ACAS uplift is a significant penalty for ignoring basic procedural fairness. For employees, it highlights the importance of documenting disclosures and any adverse treatment that follows.
Similar cases
Care home support worker wins whistleblowing and pregnancy discrimination claims
A support worker who raised COVID-19 safety concerns was put on a performance improvement plan and later dismissed. The tribunal found she suffered detriment for whistleblowing and was discriminated against when pregnant.
Head of Research dismissed for redundancy after whistleblowing: gross misconduct process was a detriment
A tribunal found that a head of research was unfairly subjected to whistleblowing detriments when his employer disciplined him for gross misconduct and referred him to the FCA after he made protected disclosures about regulatory breaches. He was awarded £198,526.
Dismissed without notice and discriminated against: a double blow for a former employee
A former employee was unfairly dismissed, wrongfully dismissed without notice, and discriminated against on grounds of sex. The tribunal awarded £16,208.68, including an uplift for the employer's failure to follow the ACAS code.
Nursery worker with disability unfairly dismissed and discriminated against
A nursery worker was unfairly dismissed and subjected to disability discrimination by Monkton Under 5 Playgroup. The tribunal awarded £27,676 in compensation, including £16,200 for injury to feelings.