Whistleblowing claim fails: dismissal was about conduct and negotiation, not protected disclosures
A vice-president dismissed after five months lost his whistleblowing claim. The tribunal found the real reasons were sexual harassment allegations and his negotiating tactics, not his protected disclosures.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #whistleblowing
- #protected-disclosure
- #redundancy-not-genuine
- #sexual-harassment-allegations
- #negotiating-tactic
- #dsar-delay
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as Vice-President of Communications and PR from 1 May 2019 until dismissal on 14 October 2019.
- The claimant made two accepted protected disclosures on 12 and 14 June 2019 about WhatsApp communication risks.
- The tribunal found that the claimant's other alleged disclosures (PD3, PD4, PD6) were not protected disclosures.
- PD5 (27 August 2019 email) was a protected disclosure but was not communicated to the decision-maker.
- The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed because of sexual harassment allegations and his negotiating tactics, not because of protected disclosures.
- The redundancy process was not genuine but a cover for the breakdown in relationship.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced employment as Vice-President of Communications and PR, having been a consultant since 2011.
-
New York Summit
First respondent hosted New York Summit; CEO Guevara frustrated with staff errors.
-
First protected disclosure (PD1)
Claimant sent WhatsApp to Guevara warning about WhatsApp communication risks.
-
Second protected disclosure (PD2)
Claimant sent WhatsApp to Guevara about litigation risk and MeToo movement.
-
Ms Magoja signed off sick
Ms Magoja, managed by claimant, signed off sick with stress for four weeks.
-
Alleged PD3 conversation
Claimant spoke to HR consultant Roberts; tribunal found no disclosure of information.
-
Ms Magoja's sexual harassment allegations
Ms Magoja disclosed to Roberts and Vallis that claimant behaved inappropriately.
-
Meeting with CEO (PD4 alleged)
Claimant met Guevara; tribunal found no disclosure of information, only negotiation.
-
PD5 email sent
Claimant emailed Roberts and Green about a meeting on 22 August; tribunal found this was a protected disclosure.
-
PD6 letter sent
Claimant emailed Guevara with proposals; tribunal found no protected disclosure.
-
Without prejudice meeting
Third respondent met claimant; claimant told he would be made redundant.
-
Dismissal
Claimant dismissed by email from third respondent.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed because he made protected disclosures, or whether the dismissal was for other reasons. It also had to consider whether he suffered detriment for making disclosures.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that while the claimant had made two accepted protected disclosures in June 2019, the decision to dismiss was not because of those disclosures.
Key reasons:
- The real reason for dismissal was a combination of sexual harassment allegations made by a colleague (Ms Magoja) and the claimant's aggressive negotiating tactics.
- The redundancy process was not genuine but was used as a cover for the breakdown in the working relationship.
- One protected disclosure (PD5) was not communicated to the decision-maker, so it could not have influenced the dismissal.
- The other alleged disclosures were not protected disclosures at all.
No compensation was awarded as the claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Making a protected disclosure does not guarantee protection if the employer can show a different, genuine reason for dismissal.
- The decision-maker must be aware of the disclosure for it to form the basis of a whistleblowing claim.
- Aggressive negotiating tactics or misconduct allegations can provide a legitimate alternative reason for dismissal.
- A sham redundancy process may be used as a cover, but the tribunal will look at the real reason behind it.
A short-lived role and a breakdown in relationships
The claimant was employed as Vice-President of Communications and PR for just over five months. During that time, he raised concerns about the use of WhatsApp for workplace communications, warning of legal and reputational risks. These were accepted as protected disclosures. However, the relationship with the CEO and other colleagues quickly soured.
In August 2019, a colleague managed by the claimant made allegations of sexual harassment against him. The claimant then engaged in what the tribunal described as 'negotiating tactics' — pushing for a settlement or improved terms. The employer decided to make him redundant, but the tribunal found this was not a genuine redundancy. Instead, it was a cover for the breakdown in trust caused by the harassment allegations and the claimant's approach to negotiations.
Why the whistleblowing claim failed
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had made two protected disclosures in June 2019 about WhatsApp risks. But the decision to dismiss was taken by a different person (the third respondent) who was not aware of the key later disclosure (PD5). The earlier disclosures were not the reason for dismissal. The real reasons were the sexual harassment allegations and the claimant's negotiating tactics. The tribunal also found that several other alleged disclosures were not protected disclosures at all — they were either not disclosures of information or were part of negotiations.
What this means for similar claims
This case shows that whistleblowing protection is not absolute. Even where an employee has made a protected disclosure, the employer may still dismiss for other genuine reasons. The tribunal will look closely at the chain of events and the decision-maker's knowledge. If the employer can show a different, non-retaliatory reason — such as misconduct or a breakdown in relationships — the claim will fail. Employees should also be aware that aggressive negotiation or personal misconduct can undermine a whistleblowing case.
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 using visitor parking permits: a flawed process that cost the council £35,000
A deputy manager with 16 years' service was dismissed for gross misconduct over visitor parking permits. The tribunal found the process unfair and awarded £35,318.56, but rejected her whistleblowing claim.
Trainee car salesman loses whistleblowing claim over father's email to CEO
A trainee car sales executive with 2.5 months' service failed to prove he made a protected disclosure when his father sent an email to the CEO alleging fraud. The tribunal found the email was not a disclosure by the claimant and was not in the public interest.
Whistleblowing claim struck out: when the disclosure comes too late
Two warehouse operatives had their automatic unfair dismissal claims for whistleblowing struck out because the alleged breaches happened before they made their protected disclosure. The tribunal said the claims had no reasonable prospects of success.