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.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as Home Manager from 12 October 2020 to 25 May 2021.
- The claimant made two protected disclosures to Sue Astill in December 2020 and February 2021 about incomplete incident reports and poor dementia care.
- The claimant was suspended on 13 May 2021 following a grievance raised by Sue Astill.
- The disciplinary hearing proceeded in the claimant's absence on 25 May 2021 and he was dismissed for gross misconduct.
- The tribunal found that the decision-maker, Lance Herbert, was unaware of the protected disclosures and dismissed the claimant due to a genuine belief in his guilt.
- All claims, including automatic unfair dismissal, age discrimination, harassment, detriment, and holiday pay, were dismissed.
Timeline
-
Claimant started employment
Claimant commenced as Home Manager at Bourne Wood Manor Care Home.
-
First protected disclosure
Claimant orally disclosed to Sue Astill that 140 accident/incident reports were incomplete and there was a lack of staff supervisions and appraisals.
-
Second protected disclosure
Claimant disclosed concerns about inadequate care on the dementia floor, including staff leaving vulnerable residents unattended and causing falls.
-
Meeting of concern
Sue Astill held a meeting to extend claimant's probation (later found to be a misunderstanding) and presented a document of concerns.
-
Claimant resigned
Claimant emailed Lance Herbert a long letter of concerns and tendered his resignation with 12 weeks' notice.
-
Claimant suspended
Claimant was suspended pending investigation into a grievance raised by Sue Astill.
-
Invitation to disciplinary hearing
Claimant was invited to a disciplinary hearing with only one working day's notice and could not open all attachments.
-
Dismissal
Disciplinary hearing proceeded in claimant's absence; he was dismissed for gross misconduct.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the principal reason for the claimant's dismissal was that he made protected disclosures about incomplete incident reports and poor dementia care, or whether it was for gross misconduct. It also considered claims of detriment, age discrimination, harassment, and holiday pay.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims, including automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing, detriment, age discrimination, harassment, and holiday pay.
Key reasons:
- The decision-maker, Lance Herbert, was unaware of the claimant's protected disclosures when deciding to dismiss.
- Herbert genuinely believed the claimant had committed gross misconduct based on the investigation.
- The claimant was dismissed after only 7 months' service, so ordinary unfair dismissal rights did not apply.
No compensation was awarded as all claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- A whistleblowing claim requires the decision-maker to have known about the protected disclosure at the time of dismissal.
- Employees with less than two years' service cannot claim ordinary unfair dismissal, but automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing has no service requirement.
- Genuine belief in misconduct can defeat a whistleblowing claim if the decision-maker was unaware of the disclosures.
- Keep clear records of any protected disclosures and ensure they are communicated to the person making dismissal decisions.
This case shows the importance of timing and knowledge in whistleblowing claims. The care home manager raised concerns about incomplete incident reports and poor dementia care to his line manager in December 2020 and February 2021. However, when he was later dismissed for gross misconduct, the person who made the decision — the Operations Director — was not aware of those disclosures. The tribunal found that the decision-maker genuinely believed the manager had committed gross misconduct, based on an investigation into a grievance raised by the same line manager.
What the employer did right
Porthaven Care Homes had a clear process: suspension, investigation, and a disciplinary hearing. The decision-maker relied on the investigation report and did not know about the protected disclosures. This insulated the company from a whistleblowing finding. The tribunal noted that the claimant had only 7 months' service, so he could not bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim — only automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing, which requires the disclosure to be the principal reason for dismissal.
What the claimant could have done differently
To succeed in a whistleblowing claim, the claimant needed to show that the person who dismissed him knew about the disclosures and dismissed him because of them. Here, the disclosures were made to a different manager, who did not pass them on to the decision-maker. The claimant might have strengthened his case by ensuring his concerns were formally recorded and escalated to senior management, or by raising them directly with the decision-maker.
Why this matters
This case highlights a common pitfall in whistleblowing claims: the decision-maker must have actual knowledge of the disclosure. Even if a disclosure is made, if it does not reach the person who decides to dismiss, the claim is likely to fail. For employees considering a whistleblowing claim, it is crucial to ensure that the disclosure is made to someone with authority over employment decisions, or that the decision-maker is copied into the communication.
Similar cases
Live-in carer wins whistleblowing detriment claim but loses constructive dismissal case
A live-in carer with 32 years' experience won a whistleblowing detriment claim after raising safety concerns, but her constructive dismissal claim failed. She was awarded £1,775.
Former employee wins discrimination and holiday pay claims against PMP Recruitment
A former employee of PMP Recruitment Limited succeeded in claims of direct discrimination and harassment on grounds of age, race, and sex, and was awarded over £19,000 in compensation.
Stock technician dismissed for unauthorised absence: conduct dismissal upheld
A stock technician with six years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after an unauthorised absence. The tribunal rejected claims of unfair dismissal, age discrimination, and harassment.
Whistleblowing detriment: removed from WhatsApp group for contacting HMRC
Two business development managers who raised concerns about PAYE and payslips were removed from the company WhatsApp group and blamed for contacting HMRC. The tribunal awarded over £15,000 each for injury to feelings, with a 20% ACAS uplift.