Furlough Whistleblower Succeeds in Automatic Unfair Dismissal Claim

Employees are entitled to insist that their employers abide by their legal obligations and should never be penalised for doing so. The point was made by the case of a woman who pointed out that a meeting with her boss had extended beyond her agreed working hours under the COVID-19 furlough…

Nov 22, 2022

Magnet me ldcc7acwvlo unsplash 1024x683

Employees are entitled to insist that their employers abide by their legal obligations and should never be penalised for doing so. The point was made by the case of a woman who pointed out that a meeting with her boss had extended beyond her agreed working hours under the COVID-19 furlough scheme.

The sales manager was on part-time flexible furlough during the pandemic and, on most days, her agreed working hours were between 10am and 4pm. During a performance review meeting with her boss, she realised that it was about 4.10pm and that they were not even halfway through their discussion. She asked if the meeting could continue on another day at a time within her agreed hours. Her boss became annoyed and angry at that suggestion.

She made it clear to him, however, that she was not prepared to work beyond her part-time furlough hours and that it would be wrong to do so. She reminded him that she and some colleagues were working longer than agreed hours to get the job done and expressed the view that it would be unfair for that to continue. She wanted him to understand that working during time for which furlough money was being claimed from the government was wrong. She was dismissed a few weeks later and lodged Employment Tribunal (ET) proceedings.

In upholding her whistleblowing claim, the ET found that she had made a protected disclosure. She had clearly communicated to her boss her belief that continuing the meeting beyond her fixed hours was a breach of the legal obligation to comply with the furlough rules. The ET was also satisfied that her protected disclosure was the principal reason why she lost her job and that her dismissal was thus automatically unfair. If not agreed, the amount of her compensation would be assessed at a further hearing.

Are ‘Smart’ Motorways Safe? High Court Ruling Begs the Question

Are so called ‘smart’ motorways, which lack hard shoulders, safe? An answer to that question was implicitly begged by a High Court case concerning a catastrophic accident involving a minibus filled with university students, one of whom died. The university-owned minibus was returning from a sporting event along a stretch of smart motorway when it began to lose power. After a dashboard warning light came on, the driver pulled into an emergency refuge area (ERA). About 22 seconds later, he drove…

Workplace Harassment Can Be Downright Cruel – You Don’t Have to Take It

Harassment in the workplace can descend into downright cruelty and employers who fail to stamp out such behaviour can expect to pay a heavy reputational and financial price. In a case on point, a sandwich shop worker who endured her line manager’s wounding comments received substantial compensation. The woman, who was in her probationary period at the shop, was being treated for a number of medical conditions, which amounted to a disability. Her numerous allergies required her to carry an…

Whistleblowing and the Importance of Causation – Guideline EAT Ruling

To succeed in a whistleblowing claim it is necessary to show not only that there has been a protected disclosure and a detrimental act but also that there is a causal link between the two. As an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruling made plain, that last element is in many cases the hardest to establish. In upholding a teacher’s whistleblowing claim, an Employment Tribunal (ET) found that she had made protected disclosures about practices within the nursery school where she worked. It also…