Furlough Scheme Abuse Whistleblower Receives Substantial Compensation

Every right-thinking person would agree that workplace whistleblowers deserve not retaliation but praise. However, the opposite sadly happened in the case of a public-spirited factory worker who expressed deep ethical concern about his employer’s criminal abuse of the COVID-19 furlough…

Mar 15, 2022

Pexels andrea piacquadio 3846559 1024x683

The man, who had a vulnerable daughter at particular risk from COVID-19, complained to management that self-isolation rules were not being followed after one of his co-workers tested positive for the virus. He also objected fiercely after discovering that the company for which he worked had wrongfully continued to claim government furlough support at a time when its employees had returned to full-time work.

After the first disclosure, he was threatened with disciplinary action and subjected to extensive negative comments by management and colleagues. For months, he was singled out and ostracised, being categorised as lazy and pathetic. Following the second disclosure, his integrity was questioned by managers who knew full well that his concerns regarding the furlough scheme were justified. He eventually resigned and launched Employment Tribunal (ET) proceedings.

In upholding his claim of automatic unfair constructive dismissal, the ET found that the company had shown a cynical disregard for his employment rights. Unbeknown to him, the company had misrecorded and declared his earnings to HM Revenue and Customs, utilising the manufactured figures for the purpose of claiming furlough support. In doing so, the company was acting in breach of its statutory obligations and participating in a number of criminal and fiscal offences.

In also upholding his claims of wrongful dismissal and unlawful detriment for whistleblowing, the ET found that the treatment to which he was subjected was inextricably linked to disclosures he made in good faith and in the public interest. The impact of the serious and sustained detriments could not be overstated: they deprived him of his congenial employment and his formerly good relationship with colleagues. The company was ordered to pay him a total of £18,291 in compensation, including £7,000 for injury to his feelings and £5,000 in aggravated damages.

Foster Panel Chair an Independent Officeholder, Not an Employee

The distinction between an independent officeholder and an employee could hardly be more important but is sometimes difficult to discern. That was certainly so in the case of a woman who served for many years as an independent chair of a local authority’s fostering panel. After her appointment was terminated, the woman lodged an Employment Tribunal (ET) complaint against the council, alleging unfair dismissal and breach of contract. The council denied her claims and, at a preliminary hearing,…

Suspension on Award of Fire Brigade Safety Equipment Contract Maintained

If you feel that you have been treated unfairly in a public contract tendering exercise, you are anything but powerless and should take legal advice straight away. A High Court case on point concerned the award of a contract for the supply of protective breathing equipment to a municipal fire brigade. Recent years have brought significant improvements in safety apparatus used by firefighters and, against the background of the Grenfell Tower disaster, the brigade was anxious to update its…

Exposure to Toxic Substances at Work – Guideline Court of Appeal Ruling

Exposure to toxic substances at work is often cited as a possible cause of diseases developed later in life. However, as an important Court of Appeal ruling made plain, establishing the plausibility of such causal links may not, by itself, be enough to succeed in an occupational injury claim. The case concerned a man who developed Parkinson’s disease after working for an industrial employer for almost 40 years. After he launched a personal injury claim, a judge found that he had been exposed on…