Whistleblowing project manager dismissed after raising concerns about charity finances
A project manager who made six protected disclosures about financial irregularities and safety failings at a homeless charity was automatically unfairly dismissed. The tribunal awarded £5,000 compensation.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #protected-disclosure
- #public-interest
- #charity-mismanagement
- #summary-dismissal
- #redundancy-pretence
- #trustee-collusion
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as Project Manager from September 2020 until her summary dismissal on 30 November 2021.
- She made six protected disclosures to the trustees in emails on 22, 23 and 29 November 2021 concerning alleged financial irregularities and safety failings.
- The trustees held a 45-minute meeting on 30 November 2021 and decided to close the hub and dismiss the claimant, citing redundancy.
- Only 20% of the claimant's role was hub-related; funding for her post was in place until February 2023.
- The tribunal found the real reason for dismissal was the protected disclosures, not redundancy.
- The parties agreed to a settlement of £5,000 compensation.
Timeline
-
Claimant starts full-time role
Ms Doran-Brown began work as Project Manager for Blackpool Community Homeless Project.
-
Email to Kevin Long
Claimant emailed CEO Kevin Long raising concerns about management and culture, but this was not a protected disclosure.
-
Trustee meeting and CEO resignation
Trustees approved claimant's hub proposals; CEO Kevin Long announced he was leaving at end of November.
-
Claimant emails trustees with disclosures
Claimant sent a lengthy email to trustees detailing seven concerns, six of which were later found to be protected disclosures.
-
Further email to trustees
Claimant emailed trustees about an unauthorised payment of £4,600 to Kevin Long.
-
Kevin Long's complaint
Kevin Long emailed trustees complaining about the claimant's disclosures.
-
Trustee meeting and dismissal
Three trustees met for 45 minutes, decided to close the hub and dismiss the claimant, Christine Doran and Laura Price. Claimant received dismissal letter that evening.
-
Claim issued
Claimant instituted proceedings for automatic unfair dismissal.
-
Final hearing begins
Employment Tribunal hearing in Manchester over four days.
-
Oral judgment
Tribunal found dismissal automatically unfair; parties agreed £5,000 compensation.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed because the real reason for her dismissal was that she had made protected disclosures about the charity's financial and safety failings, rather than the redundancy stated by the employer.
The outcome
The tribunal found the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The key reason was that the trustees' decision to dismiss was motivated by the claimant's protected disclosures, not by any genuine redundancy situation. The tribunal noted that only 20% of her role was hub-related and funding was in place until February 2023.
Compensation:
- Total agreed: £5,000
Lessons & takeaways
- If you have less than two years' service, you can still bring an automatic unfair dismissal claim if the reason is a protected disclosure.
- Keep copies of all emails and communications that show your concerns – they are key evidence in whistleblowing cases.
- An employer cannot use redundancy as a pretext to dismiss someone who has raised genuine concerns about wrongdoing.
- Even a short meeting to decide dismissal can be evidence of a predetermined outcome if the real reason is the disclosures.
This case shows how quickly a whistleblower can be dismissed when their concerns hit close to home. The project manager had only worked for the charity for 14 months when she emailed trustees about alleged financial irregularities and safety failings. Within days, the trustees held a 45-minute meeting and decided to close the hub and make her redundant – even though only 20% of her role was hub-related and her funding was secure for another 15 months.
What the employer could have done differently
The charity could have investigated the concerns properly instead of reacting defensively. The tribunal found that the trustees were influenced by the outgoing CEO, who had complained about the claimant's disclosures. A fair process would have involved separating the concerns from the employment relationship, and considering whether the disclosures were made in good faith. Instead, the trustees jumped to a redundancy rationale that did not stand up to scrutiny.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that the public interest test for protected disclosures can be met even in a small charity. The tribunal accepted that the claimant reasonably believed her disclosures about charity finances and safety were in the public interest. It also shows that tribunals will look behind the stated reason for dismissal – here, redundancy – to see if the real reason was the whistleblowing. The £5,000 settlement reflected the claimant's short service and limited financial loss, but the principle was firmly established.
Similar cases
Managing director dismissed by email: £25,000 for wrongful dismissal but protected disclosure claim fails
A managing director with a six-month notice period was dismissed by email after raising concerns about unpaid expenses and pension contributions. The tribunal awarded £25,000 for wrongful dismissal but rejected his protected disclosure 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 fails: dismissal for missed shift upheld
A community development worker with four months' service was dismissed for missing a shift. The tribunal found the reason was absence, not her protected disclosures.
Senior director dismissed for whistleblowing after alleging director breaches
A senior director who made protected disclosures about a fellow director's breaches of duty was automatically unfairly dismissed. The tribunal awarded £121,601.88, including a 25% uplift for failing to follow the ACAS Code.