Whistleblowing finance director wins constructive dismissal claim against care provider
A finance director who raised concerns about safeguarding was suspended and forced to resign. The tribunal found he was constructively dismissed because of his public interest disclosures.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was finance director of the first respondent, which provides homes for vulnerable children.
- The claimant made public interest disclosures internally and externally about concerns raised by a departing colleague.
- The claimant was suspended for alleged gross breach of trust and later resigned before a disciplinary hearing.
- The tribunal found the real reason for the claimant's treatment was the public interest disclosures, not the alleged misconduct.
- The respondents attempted to forfeit the claimant's shares by treating him as a 'bad leaver'.
Timeline
-
IT technician incident
An IT technician made inappropriate comments to Alison Bruce at her home. She mentioned it to the claimant on 12 April but gave no detail.
-
Bruce reports incident to Balchin
Alison Bruce told the second respondent about the IT technician during a car journey. The second respondent immediately took action.
-
Investigation report concludes
Richard White completed a report criticising the claimant for not escalating the IT incident. The second respondent emailed the claimant saying he would 'walk him through' the issues.
-
Claimant makes public interest disclosures
The claimant telephoned a departing colleague and then emailed Richard White about sexual harassment by the second respondent and other concerns.
-
Claimant suspended
The claimant was suspended for 'gross breach of trust' without particulars. The tribunal found this was due to the public interest disclosures.
-
External disclosures made
The claimant sent letters to Ofsted, Devon LADO, and children's commissioners about the concerns.
-
Disciplinary hearing notice
The claimant was invited to a disciplinary and grievance hearing on the same day, 16 June 2021.
-
Claimant resigns
The claimant resigned with immediate effect, believing the process was predetermined.
-
Dismissal letter sent
The first respondent sent a letter dismissing the claimant for gross misconduct, despite his resignation.
-
Share forfeiture notice
The respondents issued a notice to acquire the claimant's shares at nominal value under 'bad leaver' provisions.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's suspension, disciplinary process, and subsequent resignation were caused by his protected whistleblowing disclosures, or by his alleged failure to properly handle a safeguarding concern.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly constructively dismissed and subjected to detriment because of his public interest disclosures.
Key reasons:
- The real reason for the claimant's treatment was the disclosures he made internally and externally about concerns raised by a departing colleague, not the alleged misconduct regarding an IT technician.
- The suspension, disciplinary process, and share forfeiture were all motivated by the disclosures.
- The respondents' actions destroyed trust and confidence, justifying the claimant's resignation.
Compensation: To be determined at a remedy hearing.
Lessons & takeaways
- Whistleblowing protections apply to internal and external disclosures that are in the public interest, even if they relate to matters raised by a colleague.
- Suspending an employee for alleged misconduct shortly after they raise concerns can be evidence that the suspension is actually due to the disclosures.
- Attempting to forfeit shares or impose financial penalties on a whistleblower can amount to unlawful detriment.
- Constructive dismissal claims can succeed when an employer's response to whistleblowing destroys trust and confidence, even if the employee resigns before a disciplinary hearing.
When whistleblowing leads to dismissal
This case shows how quickly a whistleblower can go from trusted finance director to suspended employee when an employer reacts defensively to concerns raised in the public interest. The claimant, who had five years' service, made disclosures internally and externally about safeguarding issues after a departing colleague shared her exit interview statement. Within days, he was suspended for alleged gross breach of trust, and the disciplinary process that followed was found by the tribunal to be a sham.
The tribunal concluded that the real reason for the claimant's treatment was the public interest disclosures, not the alleged failure to properly escalate an IT technician's inappropriate behaviour. The respondents' actions — including a suspension without particulars, a disciplinary hearing scheduled at the same time as a grievance hearing, and an attempt to forfeit the claimant's shares as a 'bad leaver' — all pointed to a predetermined outcome.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer could have investigated the claimant's disclosures properly and taken them seriously, rather than treating them as a threat. Instead, they focused on a minor issue about how the claimant handled a colleague's report of an IT technician's conduct — an issue that the tribunal found was not the real reason for the action taken. A fair process would have separated the disciplinary concerns from the whistleblowing, and allowed the claimant to be heard without fear of reprisal.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case reinforces that whistleblowing protections are robust, even when the employer tries to characterise the employee's actions as misconduct. It also highlights that constructive dismissal claims can succeed when an employer's conduct destroys trust and confidence — here, the claimant resigned the day after receiving a disciplinary hearing notice, and the tribunal found that was a reasonable response. The case will now proceed to a remedy hearing to determine compensation, including the value of the forfeited shares.
Similar cases
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.
Restaurant manager's constructive dismissal and race discrimination claim rejected
A restaurant general manager who resigned after a disciplinary process and alleged race discrimination has lost his claims of constructive dismissal and race discrimination at the Leeds Employment Tribunal.
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.
Nurse who raised patient safety concerns wins constructive dismissal claim
A Band 5 Staff Nurse was constructively dismissed after making protected disclosures about patient safety and an alleged assault. The tribunal found the Health Board subjected her to detriments including suspension and a flawed disciplinary process.