Whistleblower redundancy claim fails: short service and genuine redundancy
An accounts administrator dismissed after raising Covid-19 safety concerns lost her unfair dismissal claim because she had less than two years' service and the tribunal found the redundancy was genuine.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #public-interest-disclosure
- #covid-19
- #redundancy
- #short-service
- #genuine-redundancy
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as an Accounts Administrator from 17 June 2019 until 30 June 2020.
- She made a protected disclosure on 6 April 2020 about lack of Covid-19 health and safety measures.
- The respondent placed her on furlough on 20 April 2020 and dismissed her by reason of redundancy on 15 May 2020.
- The claimant had less than two years' service and was not entitled to ordinary unfair dismissal protection.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was genuinely due to redundancy, not because of the protected disclosure.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began work as part-time Accounts Administrator.
-
UK lockdown announced
Government announced lockdown; respondent remained open as essential business.
-
Protected disclosure (phone call)
Claimant told director Mr Gee that the company was not following Covid-19 guidelines.
-
Letter drafted
Claimant sent a draft letter to office manager Emma Chenery detailing health and safety concerns.
-
Furlough started
Claimant was placed on furlough after choosing that option.
-
Redundancy notice
Claimant was told her role was redundant and given notice terminating on 30 June 2020.
-
Employment ended
Claimant's employment terminated.
-
ACAS early conciliation started
Claimant commenced ACAS early conciliation.
-
Claim presented
Claimant submitted her claim to the Employment Tribunal.
-
Final hearing (part 1)
Substantive hearing began at Cambridge Employment Tribunal.
-
Final hearing (part 2)
Hearing continued and concluded.
-
Judgment issued
Tribunal dismissed the claims, finding redundancy was the genuine reason for dismissal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed for making a protected disclosure about Covid-19 health and safety, or whether the dismissal was genuinely for redundancy.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant's dismissal was genuinely due to redundancy. The employer had placed her on furlough in April 2020 and later made her redundant as part of a wider restructuring. The tribunal accepted that the decision to dismiss was not influenced by her protected disclosure about Covid-19 safety.
Key reasons:
- The claimant had less than two years' service, so she could not claim ordinary unfair dismissal.
- The protected disclosure claim required proof that the disclosure was the principal reason for dismissal, which the tribunal did not find.
- The employer demonstrated a genuine redundancy situation due to the impact of the pandemic.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees with less than two years' service have limited unfair dismissal rights, unless the dismissal is for an automatically unfair reason like whistleblowing.
- To succeed in a whistleblowing claim, you must show that the protected disclosure was the principal reason for dismissal, not just a contributing factor.
- Employers should ensure redundancy decisions are well-documented and clearly linked to business needs, especially when a protected disclosure has been made.
- Part-time and short-service employees are not immune from genuine redundancy, but employers must still follow a fair process where possible.
A short service and a safety concern
The claimant, a part-time accounts administrator, had been working for Kett Autoparts (Anglia) Ltd for just under a year when the pandemic hit. In April 2020, she raised concerns with a director that the company was not following government Covid-19 guidelines. This was a protected disclosure under whistleblowing law. Shortly after, she was placed on furlough and then made redundant.
Why the claim failed
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had made a protected disclosure, but it did not accept that this was the reason for her dismissal. The company was an essential business and had seen a drop in work. The director gave evidence that the redundancy decision was based on the need to reduce costs, and the tribunal believed him. Because the claimant had less than two years' service, she could not claim ordinary unfair dismissal. Her only route was to argue that the disclosure was the principal reason for dismissal, which she could not prove.
What the employer did right
The employer was able to show a genuine redundancy situation. They had placed the claimant on furlough, which was consistent with a reduction in work. They also consulted with her about the redundancy, even though she had no statutory right to be consulted due to her short service. The tribunal noted that the timing of the redundancy close to the disclosure was suspicious, but the evidence overall pointed to a business decision, not retaliation.
What this means for similar cases
This case highlights the difficulty of proving whistleblowing dismissal when the employer can point to a genuine business reason. Employees with less than two years' service are particularly vulnerable, as they lack ordinary unfair dismissal rights. However, the case also shows that tribunals will scrutinise the evidence carefully, and a protected disclosure does not automatically protect an employee from redundancy if the redundancy is real.
Similar cases
Whistleblowing claim fails: redundancy was the real reason for dismissal
An out-of-hours call centre supervisor with four months' service was dismissed for redundancy during the pandemic. The tribunal found that, although she had made one protected disclosure, it was not the reason she lost her job.
Redundancy selection upheld despite employee's COVID-19 safety disclosures
A structural fabricator who raised COVID-19 safety concerns was fairly selected for redundancy when his employer closed a business unit. The tribunal found no link between his disclosures and his dismissal.
Dismissed by text message during lockdown: a TUPE redundancy that went wrong
A graphic designer with 15 years' service was dismissed by text message during the first lockdown. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair but rejected age discrimination claims.
Agency worker's whistleblowing and harassment claims dismissed after short assignment
A housing officer who worked for Central Bedfordshire Council for just one month via an agency had her claims of whistleblowing detriment and harassment related to disability and transgender status dismissed by the Watford Employment Tribunal.