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.

Employment – The COVID-19 Chickens are Coming Home to Roost

Many businesses confronted by the existential crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic took swift steps to shed staff. However, as an Employment Tribunal (ET) ruling showed, the requirements of employment law were not suspended and, for those who failed to comply with them, the chickens are now coming home to roost. The case concerned a graphic designer who was made redundant a few days after the first lockdown came into force. His employer, a small company, experienced a precipitous decline in sales…

Redundant Automotive Industry Worker Succeeds in Unfair Dismissal Claim

A redundancy process may be genuine and necessary, yet procedurally unfair. An Employment Tribunal (ET) made that point in the case of an automotive industry worker who would have kept his job had a selection criterion not been carelessly and mistakenly applied. Amidst a round of redundancies necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic, the vehicle handling operative was placed in a pool of eight employees, five of whom would lose their jobs. Against his employer’s selection criteria, he was assessed…

Bus Driver Sacked Whilst on Sick Leave Succeeds in Unfair Dismissal Claim

Dismissing a sick employee on medical grounds may be lawful and justified, but it is always something that is likely to attract close scrutiny by an Employment Tribunal (ET). In a case on point, a bus driver who was sacked whilst on sick leave, having suffered a stroke, succeeded in an unfair dismissal claim. The driver was hospitalised for 13 days following his stroke and was on sick leave for over six months prior to his dismissal. The DVLA had revoked his Passenger Carrying Vehicle (PCV)…