Whistleblowing dismissal upheld: lift engineer awarded £12,600 after ACAS uplift
A lift engineer who raised safety concerns about unqualified workers was automatically unfairly dismissed. The tribunal awarded £12,609.52, including a 25% ACAS uplift for the employer's failure to follow disciplinary procedures.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- Mr Hazel was employed as a lift engineer's mate from 1 February 2021 to 7 July 2021.
- Mr O'Driscoll was employed as a lift engineer from 12 April 2021 to 12 July 2021.
- Both claimants alleged they were automatically unfairly dismissed for making protected disclosures about health and safety concerns.
- Mr Hazel did not attend the final hearing and his claim was dismissed for non-attendance.
- Mr O'Driscoll's claim succeeded and he was awarded £12,609.52 including a 25% ACAS uplift.
- The respondent failed to follow the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures.
Timeline
-
Mr Hazel starts employment
Mr Hazel began working as a lift engineer's mate for Lift Gear Engineering Ltd.
-
Mr O'Driscoll starts employment
Mr O'Driscoll began working as a lift engineer for the respondent.
-
Alleged accident at work
Mr O'Driscoll allegedly suffered a back injury while working at 9 Warwick Square, London.
-
Mr O'Driscoll's text about safety concerns
Mr O'Driscoll texted Mr Hazel about concerns that unqualified persons were working on lifts without supervision.
-
Mr Hazel raises concerns with management
Mr Hazel allegedly raised health and safety concerns with Mr Buckenham and Jackie Seymour, including about working hours and public liability insurance.
-
Mr Hazel dismissed
Mr Hazel was dismissed by the respondent, allegedly for performance issues.
-
Mr O'Driscoll dismissed
Mr O'Driscoll was dismissed by letter while off sick, for not passing his probationary period.
-
Mr O'Driscoll's email challenging dismissal
Mr O'Driscoll sent a detailed email rebutting the reasons for his dismissal, but did not mention whistleblowing.
-
Preliminary hearing on strike out and deposit
Employment Judge Britton held a preliminary hearing and ordered Mr O'Driscoll to pay a £500 deposit, but refused to strike out Mr Hazel's claim.
-
Final hearing (both claims)
Mr Hazel did not attend; his claim was dismissed for non-attendance. Mr O'Driscoll's claim proceeded in the respondent's absence.
-
Judgment for Mr O'Driscoll
Employment Judge Beyzade found Mr O'Driscoll's claim of automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing succeeded and awarded £12,609.52.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the lift engineer was automatically unfairly dismissed because he made protected disclosures about health and safety concerns, specifically that unqualified persons were working on lifts without proper supervision.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the lift engineer was automatically unfairly dismissed for making protected disclosures about health and safety concerns. The employer failed to follow the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures, leading to a 25% uplift on compensation.
Compensation breakdown:
- Compensatory award: £10,087.62
- ACAS uplift (25%): £2,521.90
- Total: £12,609.52
Lessons & takeaways
- Whistleblowing claims can succeed even with short service, as the protection is automatic and not dependent on length of employment.
- Employers who fail to follow the ACAS Code of Practice risk a 25% uplift on compensation in successful claims.
- Tribunals may order a deposit if a claim appears weak, but a deposit order does not mean the claim will fail at final hearing.
- Attending the final hearing is crucial; failure to attend can result in the claim being dismissed for non-attendance.
A short service, a safety concern, and a dismissal
A lift engineer with just three months' service raised concerns that unqualified workers were being allowed to work on lifts without proper supervision. Days after raising the issue, he was dismissed while off sick with a back injury. The employer said he had not passed his probation, but the tribunal found that the real reason was the protected disclosure about health and safety.
This case shows that whistleblowing protection applies from day one of employment. The engineer did not need two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal claim – automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing has no qualifying period.
What the employer did wrong
The employer failed to follow any proper disciplinary or grievance process. They did not investigate the safety concerns, did not give the engineer a chance to respond to the reasons for dismissal, and did not offer a right of appeal. This failure led to a 25% uplift on the compensatory award under the ACAS Code of Practice.
If the employer had followed a fair process – even if they still decided to dismiss – they might have avoided the uplift and possibly reduced the compensation. The tribunal also noted that the engineer's claim had initially been considered weak enough to require a deposit, but at the final hearing the evidence told a different story.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that tribunals take health and safety disclosures seriously, especially where there is a real risk to the public. It also highlights the importance of attending hearings – the second claimant, who did not attend, had his claim dismissed entirely. For employees considering a whistleblowing claim, the key is to show that the disclosure was made in the public interest and that the dismissal was caused by it. For employers, the message is clear: follow the ACAS Code and investigate concerns properly, even if you believe the employee is not performing.
Similar cases
Senior legal counsel dismissed for disinstructing law firm without approval
A senior legal counsel who contacted CMS directly about an alleged conflict of interest was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct. The tribunal awarded £1,871.46 for unpaid notice and holiday pay.
Bar manager dismissed after reporting slush fund: whistleblowing claim succeeds
A bar manager who objected to a £60 bingo takings slush fund was unfairly dismissed for whistleblowing. The tribunal awarded £2,187.55.
Dismissed after raising health and safety concerns: a partial win for the employee
A former employee of Ian Henery Solicitors Ltd was initially found to be unfairly dismissed for raising health and safety concerns, but the unfair dismissal judgment was later revoked. The tribunal confirmed wrongful dismissal and awarded £3,336 in total.
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.