Electrician dismissed after raising asbestos concerns: whistleblowing and wrongful dismissal claim succeeds
An electrician who raised asbestos safety concerns was dismissed for alleged expense fraud. The tribunal found the dismissal was tainted by whistleblowing and awarded nearly £20,000.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #asbestos-exposure
- #protected-disclosure
- #gross-misconduct
- #expense-claim-dispute
- #wrongful-dismissal
- #acas-uplift
Key facts
- The claimant raised concerns about asbestos in a basement and took a sample that tested positive.
- The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct related to an expense claim for fuel.
- The tribunal found the claimant's protected disclosures materially influenced the employer's decision to dismiss.
- The employer failed to provide a fair disciplinary process and the appeal was a sham.
- The claimant was wrongfully dismissed as there was no evidence of fraud.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced employment as an electrician with Thames Spark Group Ltd.
-
First asbestos concern raised
Claimant raised concern about possible asbestos in basement at Fanshaw Street site.
-
Client's asbestos test negative
Client's test results for basement came back negative for asbestos.
-
Claimant took own asbestos sample
Claimant took a sample from the basement which tested positive for asbestos and reported it to Mr Ross.
-
Further asbestos concern raised
Claimant raised concern about asbestos flash guards without proper PPE.
-
Claimant sent detailed complaint
Claimant sent a WhatsApp message listing concerns including asbestos, MOT, payslips, and expenses.
-
Disciplinary process started
Claimant invited to disciplinary hearing regarding expense claim.
-
Dismissal
Claimant dismissed for gross misconduct relating to fuel expense claim.
-
Appeal dismissed
Appeal against dismissal not upheld.
-
Liability hearing
Tribunal heard evidence on liability over four days.
-
Liability judgment
Tribunal found claimant succeeded on detriment claims and wrongful dismissal.
-
Remedy hearing
Tribunal awarded total damages of £19,803.73.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the electrician was subjected to detriments and dismissed because of his health and safety actions and protected disclosures about asbestos and vehicle safety, and whether the dismissal was wrongful.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the electrician was subjected to detriments and dismissed because of his protected disclosures about asbestos and vehicle safety. The dismissal for gross misconduct over a fuel expense claim was not based on evidence of fraud, making it wrongful.
Compensation awarded:
- Total damages: £19,803.73
Lessons & takeaways
- Raising genuine health and safety concerns is a protected act — employers cannot treat you unfavourably for it.
- A dismissal for gross misconduct must be based on solid evidence; a flawed investigation can lead to a finding of wrongful dismissal.
- If you believe you have been dismissed because of a whistleblowing complaint, you may have a claim even if the employer gives a different reason.
- Keep records of any concerns you raise and the employer's response — they can be crucial evidence.
When raising safety concerns leads to dismissal
An electrician with two years' service raised concerns about asbestos at a worksite. After taking a sample that tested positive, he reported it to his manager. He also raised issues about vehicle safety and other matters. Shortly after, he was dismissed for gross misconduct over a disputed fuel expense claim.
The tribunal found that the real reason for the dismissal was the protected disclosures about asbestos. The employer's disciplinary process was flawed, and the appeal was described as a sham. There was no evidence of fraud, so the dismissal was also wrongful.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer could have properly investigated the expense claim and considered the employee's explanation. Instead, they focused on the employee's conduct in raising concerns. A fair process, with an open mind and proper evidence, might have avoided the finding of unfairness.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case shows that tribunals will look behind a stated reason for dismissal if there is evidence that protected disclosures played a part. Even a short-serving employee can succeed if the employer's process is flawed. It also highlights that a dismissal without evidence of misconduct is likely to be wrongful, entitling the employee to pay in lieu of notice.
Similar cases
Compliance Director dismissed days after blowing the whistle to the FCA: £564,672 award
A Compliance Director who reported money laundering and unauthorised directors to the FCA was dismissed four days later. The tribunal found the dismissal was automatically unfair and awarded over half a million pounds.
Whistleblowing finance director awarded £125,000 after dismissal for raising health concerns
A part-time finance director who raised concerns about a colleague's mental health and corporate governance was automatically unfairly dismissed and subjected to age discrimination. The tribunal awarded her £125,604.98.
Care home manager's whistleblowing claim fails as decision-maker unaware of disclosures
A care home manager who claimed he was automatically unfairly dismissed for raising concerns about resident safety lost his case. The tribunal found the decision-maker did not know about the disclosures and dismissed him for genuine belief in gross misconduct.
Area manager dismissed for editing timesheet: procedural failures led to unfair dismissal finding
An area manager was unfairly dismissed after editing a timesheet, but the tribunal found the investigation was flawed and the disciplinary process lacked proper notice. He was awarded £8,026 after reductions for contributory conduct and a Polkey finding.