Deputy town clerk dismissed after raising fire alarm safety concerns: whistleblowing detriment claim succeeds
A deputy town clerk with only three months' service was dismissed after repeatedly raising concerns about a failing fire alarm system. The tribunal found he suffered detriment for whistleblowing but dismissed his automatic unfair dismissal claim.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as deputy town clerk from 1 February 2019.
- The town hall fire alarm system had been failing since at least 2016.
- The claimant made protected disclosures about the fire alarm on 23 April, 3 May, and 9 May 2019.
- The second respondent made the claimant an offer to resign on 26 April 2019, falsely claiming councillors had authorised it.
- The claimant was dismissed on 15 May 2019 without a fair process.
- The tribunal found the second respondent subjected the claimant to detriment for making protected disclosures.
Timeline
-
Claimant starts employment
Mr Bond began work as deputy town clerk for Welshpool Town Council.
-
Meeting with BID
The claimant attended a meeting with BID and learned of fire alarm issues.
-
Fire alarm quote received
BID provided a £43,655 quote to replace the fire alarm system; the claimant gave it to 2R.
-
First protected disclosure
The claimant told 2R that the fire alarm was not working and it was a serious health and safety issue.
-
Resignation offer
2R offered the claimant a resignation package, falsely claiming councillors had authorised it.
-
Probation review meeting
A panel met; 2R stormed out demanding the claimant's dismissal. The panel decided to extend probation.
-
Second protected disclosure
The claimant told 2R the fire alarm needed to be made fully operational immediately.
-
Third protected disclosure
The claimant gave 2R the latest inspection report showing 60% failure and said it was a health and safety risk.
-
Royal Oak Hotel meeting
2R took Ms Moore and Mr McGrath to meet Councillor Pritchard; they complained about 2R, not the claimant.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed by Councillor Kaye and 2R without a fair process.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant made protected disclosures about the fire alarm system, and if so, whether he was subjected to detriment or dismissed because of them.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claimant's complaints of detriment for protected disclosures and health and safety activities against both the council and the town clerk. It found that the town clerk orchestrated a sham resignation offer and pressured councillors to dismiss the claimant quickly.
However, the tribunal dismissed the claims of automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing or health and safety reasons. The reason for dismissal was found to be the claimant's conduct and capability, not the disclosures.
A remedy hearing will be scheduled to determine compensation.
Lessons & takeaways
- Whistleblowing protection applies from day one of employment – there is no qualifying service period.
- Employers must not take any detrimental action – including offering a bogus resignation package – because of a protected disclosure.
- A dismissal may be unfair but not automatically unfair if the principal reason is not the disclosure itself.
- Health and safety whistleblowing can cover reporting defective equipment that poses a risk to staff and the public.
What this case shows in practice
The claimant, a deputy town clerk with just three months' service, discovered that the town hall's fire alarm system had been failing since at least 2016. After obtaining a £43,655 quote for replacement, he raised the issue repeatedly with the town clerk. Instead of acting on the concerns, the town clerk offered him a resignation package falsely claiming councillors had authorised it, then pressured for his dismissal.
The tribunal found that the town clerk's actions – from the bogus resignation offer to influencing councillors to dismiss the claimant – were done because of the protected disclosures. The council was held vicariously liable for the town clerk's conduct.
What the losing side could have done differently
The council and town clerk could have avoided liability by taking the fire alarm concerns seriously and following a proper process. Instead of trying to silence the whistleblower, they should have investigated the issues and addressed the health and safety risk. The town clerk's decision to fabricate councillor authorisation for a resignation offer was a clear attempt to remove the claimant without dealing with the substance of his complaint.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that whistleblowing protection applies from day one of employment. Even short-serving employees can bring claims for detriment if they are penalised for raising genuine concerns. However, it also shows that a dismissal may not be automatically unfair if the employer can show that the principal reason for dismissal was something else – here, conduct and capability. The distinction between detriment and dismissal is critical, and claimants should ensure they bring the right claims.
Similar cases
Whistleblowing during probation: dismissal for suitability upheld
A Head of People Services with only four months' service was dismissed for lack of suitability during her probation. The tribunal found no link between her protected disclosures and the dismissal, rejecting claims of automatic unfair dismissal and detriment.
Dismissed for redundancy that wasn't genuine: a warning for employers
A former employee was unfairly dismissed after her employer failed to prove a genuine redundancy exercise. The tribunal awarded £1,921.85 in compensation.
Restaurant manager dismissed after reporting mouse droppings: whistleblowing claim fails
A restaurant manager with six months' service who reported mouse droppings and chef misconduct was not automatically unfairly dismissed, but won £3,201 for unpaid tronc and holiday pay.
Pre-school staff made redundant: who was the real employer?
Four pre-school employees claimed unfair dismissal after redundancy, but the tribunal first had to decide who their employer was – the management committee, the church council, or individuals.