Whistleblower claim fails after admitted falsification of food safety records

A short service whistleblower case that failed

This case shows the difficulty of bringing a whistleblowing claim when the employer has clear evidence of misconduct. The claimant, a quality control auditor at a food production company, had been employed for only three months when he was dismissed. He admitted falsifying temperature probe calibration records – a serious breach in a food safety environment.

The tribunal accepted that two of his concerns (about face masks and refreezing materials) were protected disclosures. However, the decision to dismiss was based on his admitted misconduct, not on those disclosures. The claimant could not show that the protected disclosures were the reason for his dismissal, which is the key requirement for a successful claim under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

What the employer could have done differently

The dismissing officer had no training in disciplinary procedures and did not follow the ACAS code of practice. While this might have supported an ordinary unfair dismissal claim, it did not help the claimant here because he had less than two years' service and could only bring a whistleblowing claim. The tribunal noted the procedural failings but found they did not change the fact that the real reason for dismissal was the admitted falsification.

Why this matters for similar claims

For employees with short service, whistleblowing is one of the few routes to challenge a dismissal. But this case is a reminder that the burden of proof is on the employee to show that the protected disclosure was the reason for dismissal. If the employer can point to clear misconduct that would have led to dismissal anyway, the claim is likely to fail. It also highlights that even a flawed disciplinary process does not automatically make a dismissal unfair if the underlying reason is genuine misconduct.