Export manager who raised safety concerns about wheelchair lifts wins constructive dismissal claim
An export manager who resigned after her employer insisted she continue selling lifts that were not certified for wheelchair use has won her whistleblowing unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal awarded £11,112.89.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #protected-disclosure
- #product-safety
- #certification-issue
- #trust-and-confidence
- #wheelchair-accessibility
Key facts
- The claimant worked as an Export Key Account Manager from 10 March 2020 to 31 March 2022.
- The respondent manufactured and sold home lifts, including the Trio+ model marketed for wheelchair use.
- The Lift Instituut certificate for the Trio+ contained a condition stating the lift was not suitable for wheelchair use.
- The claimant raised concerns about the certificate discrepancy and was told to continue selling.
- The claimant resigned on 3 March 2022 due to the respondent's breach of trust and confidence.
- The tribunal found the claimant was constructively dismissed and the principal reason was her protected disclosures.
Timeline
-
Claimant started employment
Marlena Paszkowska began working for Stiltz Ltd as an Export Key Account Manager.
-
First query about certificate anomaly
An Italian dealer informed the claimant of a discrepancy between the Lift Instituut certificate and the respondent's own certificate regarding travel height.
-
Email about wheelchair restriction
Chris Westwood emailed stating the Lift Instituut certificate excluded wheelchair use for all lifts.
-
First protected disclosure
The claimant raised the certificate issue at a team meeting, questioning the legality of selling lifts for wheelchair use.
-
Heated discussion with manager
The claimant overheard Miss Starzak reading condition 5 of the certificate and confronted her about selling non-compliant lifts.
-
Further discussion and apology
Miss Starzak apologized but said she could not guarantee future behavior; the claimant refused to lie to customers.
-
Claimant's email to manager
The claimant sent an email detailing her concerns about product compliance and requesting reassurance.
-
Meeting with Mr Faulkner
Mr Faulkner told the claimant the lifts were certified and a new certificate would be obtained in 6 months; he remarked he would be first to go to prison if an accident occurred.
-
Claimant resigned
The claimant resigned due to the respondent's breach of trust and confidence.
-
Employment ended
The claimant's garden leave ended and her employment terminated.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was constructively dismissed and whether the principal reason for her dismissal was that she had made protected disclosures about the respondent's failure to comply with safety certification requirements.
The outcome
The tribunal ruled that the claimant was constructively and unfairly dismissed. The key reason was that the respondent breached the implied term of trust and confidence by pressuring the claimant to continue marketing lifts for wheelchair use despite knowing that the relevant safety certificate excluded such use. The claimant's repeated raising of this issue constituted protected disclosures, and the respondent's treatment of her was calculated to destroy trust and confidence.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £1,360.00
- Compensatory award: £9,752.89
- Total: £11,112.89
Lessons & takeaways
- If you raise a genuine safety concern in the public interest, you may be protected as a whistleblower even if you are wrong, as long as you have a reasonable belief.
- An employer's instruction to continue a practice that you reasonably believe is unsafe can be a fundamental breach of contract, justifying resignation and a constructive dismissal claim.
- Keep a clear written record of your concerns and the employer's responses; contemporaneous documentation can be crucial evidence.
- Resigning promptly after the last act of breach helps avoid arguments that you affirmed the contract by delay.
When doing your job means blowing the whistle
This case shows how an employee who raises legitimate safety concerns can find themselves in an impossible position. The claimant, an Export Key Account Manager, discovered that a lift model marketed for wheelchair users had a certificate from the Lift Instituut that explicitly stated it was not suitable for wheelchair use. When she raised this with her managers, she was told to continue selling the lifts anyway. The tribunal found that her managers viewed the problem 'through the lens of the need to make sales' and failed to recognise the significance of what she had identified.
What the employer could have done differently
Stiltz Limited could have taken the claimant's concerns seriously from the start. Instead of insisting she continue selling, they could have paused sales of the Trio+ for wheelchair use until the certificate issue was resolved. They could have provided her with clear reassurance that they would address the compliance problem. Instead, the tribunal heard that one manager remarked he would be 'first to go to prison' if an accident occurred — a comment that hardly inspired confidence. By failing to treat the claimant's disclosures as a legitimate compliance issue, the employer destroyed the trust that is essential to any employment relationship.
Why this result matters
This decision reinforces that employees who raise safety concerns in the public interest are protected, even if the employer disagrees. The tribunal emphasised that the claimant's belief that the lifts were being sold in breach of legal obligations was reasonable, and her disclosures were in the public interest because they concerned the safety of wheelchair users. For employees facing similar dilemmas, the key lesson is that resigning in response to a fundamental breach — and doing so promptly — can lead to a successful whistleblowing claim. For employers, the message is clear: ignoring or dismissing safety concerns raised in good faith is likely to be a costly mistake.
Similar cases
Whistleblowing claims dismissed: council's breakdown of trust was genuine
A Community Development Manager who claimed she was dismissed for whistleblowing lost her case. The tribunal found the council's decision was due to an irretrievable breakdown in working relationships, not her protected disclosures.
Dismissed for crashing a van and trying to hide it – protected disclosures did not save him
A depot technician with 12 years' service was dismissed after reversing a work van into a tree and attempting to repair the damage himself. The tribunal upheld the dismissal, finding it was for misconduct, not because of his protected disclosures.
Commission scheme change: constructive dismissal claim fails as non-contractual benefit
A Business Development Manager who resigned after his employer changed his commission scheme lost his unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found the commission was never contractual and the employer acted reasonably.
Janitor dismissed for unauthorised absences caught on CCTV: gross misconduct upheld
A janitor with six years' service was fairly dismissed after CCTV and fob data showed he spent extended periods away from his post. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.