Whistleblowing claim fails: disciplinary action was about conduct, not disclosures
A welfare caseworker with 12 years' service lost her claim for detriment and constructive dismissal after the tribunal found that disciplinary proceedings were prompted by her threatening behaviour, not by her protected disclosures.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #public-interest-disclosure
- #health-safety
- #disciplinary-proceedings
- #threatening-behaviour
- #charity-commission
- #constructive-dismissal
Key facts
- The claimant made protected disclosures about health and safety and use of charity reserves between December 2014 and August 2017.
- On 31 July 2017, the claimant told trustees she would go to the Charity Commission and they might lose their houses, and made a derogatory comment about a colleague.
- The respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings on 20 September 2017 based on allegations of threatening behaviour and a derogatory comment.
- The claimant resigned on 24 May 2018 after her grievance appeal was not upheld.
- The tribunal found that the disciplinary proceedings were not materially influenced by the protected disclosures but by the claimant's conduct.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant started work for the respondent as Advice and Outreach, later Welfare Caseworker.
-
First health and safety concerns raised
Claimant raised concerns about the main door being unlocked.
-
Grievance about pay
Claimant raised a grievance about her pay with trustees.
-
Meeting about restructure
Claimant met with Ms Hanley and raised concerns about funding the Operations Manager post from reserves.
-
Incident in reception
Claimant told trustees she would go to the Charity Commission and they might lose their houses; also made a derogatory comment about a colleague.
-
Further conversation
Claimant repeated concerns about finances and the Charity Commission to trustees.
-
Suspension and disciplinary proceedings
Claimant was suspended and invited to a disciplinary hearing for alleged misconduct.
-
Grievance about disciplinary action
Claimant submitted a grievance through solicitors alleging the disciplinary action was linked to her disclosures.
-
Resignation
Claimant resigned, stating she felt constructively dismissed.
-
Merits hearing
First tribunal hearing on the claims.
-
Remitted hearing
Hearing on the remitted issue of causation.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's decision to start and continue disciplinary proceedings was caused by the claimant's whistleblowing disclosures or by her separate conduct (threatening behaviour and a derogatory comment).
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims of public interest disclosure detriment and constructive unfair dismissal.
- The claimant made protected disclosures about health and safety and charity finances between December 2014 and August 2017.
- However, the disciplinary process was triggered by her conduct on 31 July 2017, when she told trustees she would report them to the Charity Commission and they might lose their houses, and made a derogatory remark about a colleague.
- The tribunal found that the respondent's decision to investigate and discipline was not influenced by the disclosures but by the need to address the conduct.
- No compensation was awarded as all claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Whistleblowing protection does not shield employees from disciplinary action for separate misconduct, even if the disclosures are made in the same conversation.
- Employers should clearly separate conduct issues from protected disclosures in their decision-making and documentation to avoid allegations of causation.
- Employees who make protected disclosures should avoid combining them with threats or personal attacks, as that can undermine the protection.
- Tribunals will examine the real reason for disciplinary action; if it is genuinely about conduct, the claim will fail even if disclosures were also made.
When whistleblowing and misconduct collide
This case illustrates a common pitfall for employees who raise concerns in the workplace: the line between a protected disclosure and unacceptable conduct can be thin. The claimant, a welfare caseworker with 12 years' service at Luton Irish Forum, had raised legitimate concerns about health and safety and the use of charity reserves over several years. But on 31 July 2017, during a discussion about those issues, she told trustees she would go to the Charity Commission and they might lose their houses, and made a derogatory comment about a colleague.
What the employer did right
The tribunal accepted that the employer's decision to start disciplinary proceedings was a reasonable response to the claimant's conduct, not a retaliation for her disclosures. The trustees were genuinely concerned about the threatening language and the personal remark, which were separate from the content of the disclosures. The employer followed its disciplinary policy, suspended the claimant, and gave her a fair hearing. The tribunal noted that the disciplinary process was not a sham or a pretext; it was a genuine attempt to address behaviour that the employer considered unacceptable.
Why the claim failed
For a whistleblowing detriment claim to succeed, the protected disclosure must have materially influenced the employer's action. Here, the tribunal found that the conduct was the sole trigger. The claimant's resignation in May 2018, after her grievance appeal was rejected, did not amount to constructive dismissal because there was no fundamental breach of contract by the employer. The case shows that even strong whistleblowing protection has limits: employees cannot use it as a shield against the consequences of their own threatening or abusive behaviour.
Similar cases
Staff nurse's constructive dismissal claim over whistleblowing fails
A tribunal has dismissed all claims brought by a Band 5 staff nurse against Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust, including constructive dismissal, whistleblowing detriment, and discrimination on grounds of race, age, and religion.
Charity founder dismissed after blowing the whistle: a case of time limits and constructive dismissal
A general manager who resigned over a hostile working environment was later dismissed for gross misconduct. The tribunal found he was wrongfully dismissed but his whistleblowing claim failed because it was brought too late.
Procurement director's constructive dismissal claim over whistleblowing and disability fails
A procurement director who resigned after raising concerns about commission on expired contracts has lost her tribunal claims for constructive unfair dismissal, whistleblowing detriment and disability discrimination.
Team manager awarded £18,900 after removal of duties and disciplinary action
A team manager with eight years' service was constructively dismissed after his employer removed all managerial duties for over 10 months and then disciplined him for swearing. The tribunal awarded £18,923.