Whistleblowing claim fails: redundancy was the real reason for dismissal
An out-of-hours call centre supervisor with four months' service was dismissed for redundancy during the pandemic. The tribunal found that, although she had made one protected disclosure, it was not the reason she lost her job.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #public-interest-disclosure
- #redundancy
- #covid-19
- #health-safety
- #ppe
- #prescription-errors
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as an out-of-hours call centre supervisor from 6 December 2019 until 19 April 2020.
- The respondent experienced a dramatic downturn in work due to the Covid-19 pandemic and lockdown.
- The claimant made multiple incident reports and emails raising concerns about patient safety, prescriptions, and PPE.
- Only one communication (Disclosure 19 on 29 March 2020) was found to be a protected disclosure.
- The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy on 19 April 2020.
- The tribunal found that redundancy was the sole reason for dismissal, not the protected disclosure.
Timeline
-
Claimant started work
Claimant began working as an administration support casual worker for Healthbridge Direct.
-
Temporary supervisor role
Claimant was offered a fixed-term contract as an out-of-hours call centre supervisor until 31 March 2020.
-
Government announced lockdown
UK government announced non-essential contact and travel should stop due to Covid-19.
-
Contract extension offered
Respondent offered claimant an extension to her contract until 30 September 2020.
-
First lockdown announced
UK government announced first lockdown, ordering people to stay at home.
-
Disclosure 19 email
Claimant sent an email about prescription tracking issues, which was later found to be a protected disclosure.
-
HR meeting
Ms Panesar of HR had a telephone meeting with claimant about contract extension and working hours.
-
Lockdown extended
Government extended lockdown for at least three weeks, leading to further downturn in work.
-
Redundancy notification
Claimant was informed by email that she was being made redundant due to downturn in work.
-
First whistleblowing allegation
Claimant wrote to respondent alleging dismissal was due to anticipated whistleblowing.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant made protected disclosures (whistleblowing) and, if so, whether the sole or principal reason for her dismissal was that she made those disclosures.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant had made one protected disclosure (an email about prescription tracking issues on 29 March 2020), but that her dismissal on 19 April 2020 was due to redundancy. The respondent had experienced a severe drop in work because of the pandemic and lockdown. The tribunal accepted that redundancy was the real reason, not the disclosure.
No compensation was awarded because the claim failed. The claimant did not have the two-year service required for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim, so this was her only route.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you have less than two years' service, you can only claim unfair dismissal if the reason is automatically unfair, such as whistleblowing or discrimination.
- To succeed in a whistleblowing claim, you must show that the protected disclosure was the sole or principal reason for your dismissal – not just one factor among others.
- Keep clear records of any protected disclosures you make, including what you said, when, and to whom, as the tribunal will scrutinise each communication closely.
- A genuine redundancy situation can be a strong defence for an employer, even if the employee has made protected disclosures.
A short-lived role during a pandemic
The claimant worked as an out-of-hours call centre supervisor for Healthbridge Direct for just over four months, from December 2019 to April 2020. Her fixed-term contract was extended in March 2020, but within weeks the Covid-19 lockdown caused a dramatic fall in the company's work. On 19 April 2020, she was told she was being made redundant.
During her short employment, she had raised several concerns about patient safety, prescriptions, and PPE. The tribunal found that only one of those communications – an email about prescription tracking on 29 March 2020 – qualified as a protected disclosure under whistleblowing law. The others did not meet the legal test.
Why the claim failed
The central question was whether the disclosure was the reason for her dismissal. The tribunal accepted that the respondent was facing a genuine redundancy situation: the lockdown had drastically reduced the need for out-of-hours call centre supervisors. The decision to dismiss was made by HR and management based on the business downturn, not because of the claimant's email. The tribunal found that redundancy was the sole reason, so the claim of automatic unfair dismissal could not succeed.
What this means for similar cases
This case shows that even if an employee has made a protected disclosure, they still need to prove that the disclosure was the real reason for their dismissal. If an employer can show a genuine, independent reason – like redundancy – the claim will fail. It also highlights the importance of having clear evidence linking the disclosure to the dismissal. For employees with less than two years' service, the bar is high: they can only bring an unfair dismissal claim if the reason is automatically unfair, and they must prove the connection.
Similar cases
Whistleblower redundancy claim fails: short service and genuine redundancy
An accounts administrator dismissed after raising Covid-19 safety concerns lost her unfair dismissal claim because she had less than two years' service and the tribunal found the redundancy was genuine.
Mobile operative dismissed for raising health and safety concerns wins unfair dismissal claim
A mobile operative who was dismissed after repeatedly raising concerns about understaffing, inadequate PPE, and unsanitary conditions at Serco's London Cycle Hire Scheme has won his claim for automatic unfair dismissal. The tribunal found the principal reason for his dismissal was his protected disclosures.
Redundancy selection upheld despite employee's COVID-19 safety disclosures
A structural fabricator who raised COVID-19 safety concerns was fairly selected for redundancy when his employer closed a business unit. The tribunal found no link between his disclosures and his dismissal.
Dismissed by text message during lockdown: a TUPE redundancy that went wrong
A graphic designer with 15 years' service was dismissed by text message during the first lockdown. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair but rejected age discrimination claims.