Sales manager dismissed after raising Covid safety concerns: redundancy was a sham
A sales manager with 22 years' service was automatically unfairly dismissed after making protected disclosures about Covid-19 travel restrictions. The tribunal found the redundancy was a sham and the real reason was whistleblowing.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #whistleblowing
- #covid-19
- #redundancy-sham
- #associative-disability
- #sales-manager
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Sales Manager from 1 February 1999 until dismissal on 11 December 2020.
- The claimant made protected disclosures about Covid-19 travel restrictions to the Managing Director in November 2020.
- The Managing Director initiated a redundancy process on 13 November 2020, shortly after the disclosures.
- The tribunal found the redundancy was a sham and the principal reason for dismissal was the protected disclosures.
- The claimant's uncle had cancer and the claimant was his carer, but the disability discrimination claim failed.
- The tribunal found the claimant's role was the same as another sales manager who was not selected for redundancy.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as Sales Manager with ATB Sales Ltd, later renamed Whyte Bikes Ltd.
-
First national lockdown
UK lockdown began; bike shops remained open. Sales staff worked from home.
-
Claimant resumed field visits
Claimant began visiting customers again after restrictions eased.
-
Second lockdown announced
UK Prime Minister announced a circuit breaker lockdown from 5 November.
-
First protected disclosure
Claimant told Mr Farrant by phone that it was illegal to visit dealers and that he was caring for his dying uncle.
-
Email disclosure
Claimant emailed Mr Farrant explaining Covid travel restrictions and his caring responsibilities.
-
Further email
Claimant emailed asking for guidance on how to return to work lawfully.
-
Redundancy process started
Mr Farrant sent claimant a settlement offer and redundancy letter, which tribunal found showed predetermination.
-
Claimant's uncle died
Claimant's uncle passed away.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal was automatically unfair because the principal reason was his protected disclosures about Covid-19 travel restrictions, and whether the dismissal amounted to disability discrimination because of his uncle's disability.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed because the principal reason for his dismissal was his protected disclosures about Covid-19 travel restrictions. The disability discrimination claim failed.
- The claimant made protected disclosures in November 2020 about the legality of visiting dealers during lockdown and his caring responsibilities for his dying uncle.
- The Managing Director initiated a redundancy process just days after the disclosures, which the tribunal found was predetermined and a sham.
- The claimant's role was identical to another sales manager who was not selected for redundancy.
- Damages are to be determined at a future remedy hearing.
Lessons & takeaways
- Making a protected disclosure about health and safety concerns can protect you from dismissal, even if you have a long service history.
- If an employer starts a redundancy process very soon after you raise concerns, the tribunal may view it as a sham if the process is not genuine.
- Employers should ensure redundancy selection criteria are applied consistently and objectively, especially when roles are identical.
- Disability discrimination claims based on associative disability (caring for a disabled relative) can be difficult to prove without direct evidence of less favourable treatment.
A long-serving employee's concerns were met with dismissal
This case shows how quickly a legitimate concern about workplace safety can be turned into a dismissal, even for an employee with over two decades of service. The claimant, a Sales Manager, raised concerns with his Managing Director about the legality of visiting dealers during the November 2020 lockdown and about his caring responsibilities for his dying uncle. Within days, the Managing Director initiated a redundancy process that the tribunal later described as a sham.
What the employer did wrong
The tribunal found that the redundancy process was predetermined. The Managing Director sent a settlement offer and redundancy letter on the same day he started the process, without any meaningful consultation. Crucially, the claimant's role was identical to another sales manager who was not selected for redundancy. The tribunal preferred the claimant's evidence over the Managing Director's, noting inconsistencies and a lack of credibility. The employer could have avoided this outcome by following a genuine redundancy process, consulting properly, and applying objective selection criteria.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that whistleblowing protections are strong, even when the disclosure relates to a rapidly changing situation like the Covid-19 pandemic. The tribunal found that the claimant's disclosures about the legality of travel during lockdown were protected disclosures under the Employment Rights Act 1996. The fact that the redundancy was a sham meant the dismissal was automatically unfair. The case also highlights the importance of keeping a paper trail and being consistent in evidence, as the tribunal placed significant weight on the claimant's consistent account.
Similar cases
Bid Architect fails to win interim relief over whistleblowing claim
A bid architect with nine months' service claimed his redundancy was a sham to cover up a protected disclosure. The tribunal refused interim relief, finding it unlikely that the principal reason for dismissal was whistleblowing.
Whistleblowing claim over covid safety fails: tribunal finds employer's actions were about cryptocurrency miners
A mechanical technician who raised covid-19 safety concerns was investigated for setting up cryptocurrency miners on site. The tribunal dismissed his whistleblowing claim, finding the investigation was about the miners, not his disclosures.
Dismissed after requesting to work from home during lockdown: a redundancy sham
A contract manager who asked to work from home temporarily because his son was clinically vulnerable was dismissed for purported redundancy. The tribunal found the real reason was his home-working request and awarded £38,758.
Bar Manager with terminal cancer: tribunal refuses to strike out discrimination claims
An employment judge has refused to strike out disability discrimination claims brought by a bar manager with terminal lung cancer, ruling that factual disputes over reasonable adjustments during the pandemic must be heard at a full hearing.