Whistleblowing claim fails: redundancy selection upheld for aerospace inspector with 21 years' service
An ultrasonic immersion inspector with 21 years' service was fairly selected for redundancy after a COVID-19 downturn, with the tribunal finding his concerns about the piecework pay system did not amount to a protected disclosure.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #piecework-pay-system
- #whistleblowing
- #redundancy
- #disciplinary-investigation
- #covid-19-downturn
Key facts
- The claimant was employed from 29 March 1999 to 31 October 2020 as an ultrasonic immersion aerospace inspector.
- The claimant raised concerns about the piecework pay system to Managing Director Mr Danger in March 2019.
- The respondent suffered a significant reduction in workload due to the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to a genuine redundancy situation.
- The claimant was selected for redundancy after scoring 14th out of 18 employees in his department.
- The tribunal found that the claimant's disclosure did not contain sufficient factual content to be a qualifying disclosure under section 43B ERA.
- The tribunal held that the reason for dismissal was redundancy, not the alleged protected disclosure.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as an Ultrasonic Immersion Aerospace Inspector Level 2.
-
Whistleblowing disclosure
Claimant raised concerns about the piecework pay system to Managing Director Mr Danger during a shop floor walkaround.
-
Conduct complaint by supervisor
Supervisor Kevin Lock emailed Mr Tomlinson complaining about the claimant's conduct.
-
Disciplinary investigation
A disciplinary investigation was initiated but concluded with no action taken against the claimant.
-
Consultation on pay changes
The respondent held a meeting with the claimant's department to discuss changes to the piecework pay system.
-
Night shift request
Claimant agreed to work nights to reduce COVID-19 exposure, subject to review in June/July 2020.
-
Redundancy consultation begins
Collective consultation with elected representatives started; claimant received consultation pack.
-
Final consultation and dismissal
Claimant attended final consultation meeting with trade union representative; dismissal confirmed effective 31 October 2020.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed the redundancy decision, citing scoring bias and whistleblowing.
-
Appeal outcome
Appeal not upheld; claimant informed of outcome.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant made a qualifying protected disclosure about the piecework pay system, and if so, whether he was subjected to detriment or automatically unfairly dismissed because of it. Alternatively, whether the dismissal was fair by reason of redundancy.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's claims for unfair dismissal and whistleblowing detriment.
- The tribunal held that the claimant's disclosure to the managing director in March 2019 did not contain sufficient factual content to be a qualifying disclosure under section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
- The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was genuine redundancy due to a COVID-19-related downturn, and the selection process was fair.
- No compensation was awarded as the respondent won the case.
Lessons & takeaways
- For a whistleblowing claim to succeed, the disclosure must contain specific factual information that tends to show a legal or regulatory breach, not just general concerns.
- Employers can fairly select for redundancy based on objective scoring criteria, even if the employee has previously raised concerns, provided the process is genuine and transparent.
- Long service does not automatically protect an employee from redundancy if the business downturn is genuine and the selection process is fair.
- Employees considering a whistleblowing claim should ensure their disclosure is in writing and clearly identifies the alleged wrongdoing with supporting facts.
A genuine redundancy, not a cover-up
This case illustrates how a long-serving employee's concerns about workplace practices can be mistaken for protected whistleblowing. The claimant, an ultrasonic immersion inspector with 21 years' service, raised issues about the piecework pay system with the managing director in March 2019. However, the tribunal found that his comments were general in nature and did not contain enough factual detail to qualify as a protected disclosure under employment law.
When the COVID-19 pandemic caused a significant drop in workload, the company began a redundancy process. The claimant was scored against objective criteria and placed 14th out of 18 employees in his department, leading to his dismissal. He argued that his earlier disclosure had influenced the decision, but the tribunal rejected this, finding that the real reason for dismissal was redundancy.
What the employer did right
NDT Services Limited followed a structured redundancy process, including collective consultation with elected representatives and individual consultation with the claimant. They used a scoring matrix based on skills, experience, and performance, which the tribunal considered reasonable. The company also gave the claimant the right to appeal, which was properly considered.
Key takeaways for similar claims
This case shows that not every complaint about working conditions will be protected as whistleblowing. To succeed, an employee must show that their disclosure contained specific facts that tend to reveal a legal breach, danger, or miscarriage of justice. General grumbles about pay or management decisions will not suffice.
For employers, the case confirms that a fair redundancy process, with objective scoring and genuine consultation, can withstand challenge even from long-serving employees. The tribunal was satisfied that the company acted reasonably in treating redundancy as a sufficient reason for dismissal.
Similar cases
Research assistant's redundancy claim fails: funding cessation was genuine reason
A research assistant with 12 years' service lost her claim for unfair dismissal, whistleblowing detriment and disability discrimination after the tribunal found her redundancy was genuinely due to loss of funding.
Senior engineer made redundant after pandemic downturn: unfair dismissal due to opaque selection process
An employment tribunal found that Bechtel Ltd unfairly dismissed a senior electrical engineer during a redundancy process, ruling that the selection lacked transparency. The claimant's race, caste, and whistleblowing claims were dismissed.
Dismissed for redundancy after divorce talks: a hidden reason for unfair dismissal
A book-keeper and administrator was unfairly dismissed after her employer used redundancy as a pretext to end her employment following the breakdown of divorce settlement negotiations. The tribunal awarded £8,922.50.
Sports club managers dismissed without consultation: redundancy ruled unfair
Two joint managers of a sports club were unfairly dismissed when they were made redundant without any consultation, despite the club's dire financial situation. The tribunal also found they were owed unpaid wages and holiday pay.