Whistleblower Wins: Tribunal Sides with Dismissed Bar Manager Who Exposed Colleagues’ Drug Use

In Nadine Fallone v Peckham Levels Limited, an employment tribunal ruled in favour of a dismissed bar manager. The tribunal found that the termination of her employment followed her reporting of drug use among staff, leading to her unfair dismissal claim.

In this article, we examine the whistleblowing incident that triggered her dismissal from work and the tribunal’s judgment. We also break down what constitutes a protected disclosure and share guidance for anyone facing similar challenges.

If you’ve been dismissed under similar circumstances and believe your rights have been breached, please get in touch. Redmans Solicitors are employment law specialists ready to provide expert advice following a quick consultation. To learn more about how we can help:

The Facts in Nadine Fallone v Peckham Levels Limited

Background of the Dismissed Bar Manager

Nadine Fallone (“The Claimant”) began working for Peckham Levels Limited (“The Respondent”) as a duty manager on 8 August 2022. Prior to her appointment, she’d faced mental health difficulties, specifically experiencing severe anxiety and depression. However, when she accepted this role, she was in a “substantially better” place.

On 10 December, the respondent hosted a watch party for the England vs France World Cup match. During the event, the claimant learned that some colleagues had been consuming drinks from the bar. She later witnessed their drunken behaviour and believed their conduct was “inappropriate and potentially dangerous”.

Then, on New Year’s Eve, the claimant noticed a member of staff removing no smoking signs from the terraces. She was concerned this was a safety risk and against the law and spoke to the colleague about it. 

The claimant brought both issues to her line manager’s attention, but when they remained unaddressed, she informed the respondent’s external HR consultant,  Bespoke HR. She did this on 10 January 2023, telling the respondent’s owner, Mr Preston Benson, at the same time. This led to a discussion with Mr Benson, where the claimant emphasised the need for clearer management.

Colleague Offered Cocaine

Unfortunately, this wasn’t the last development. On 13 January, one of the respondent’s employees approached the claimant, informing her that a colleague had offered cocaine at a leaving party the night before. This was deemed a serious offence, prompting the claimant to report it the following day. On 16 January, she also informed Mr Benson, leading to the claimant discussing her complaints with HR later that month.

Bespoke HR then attended the respondent’s premises on 25 January, asking employees specific questions. They inquired whether anyone was aware of drug use or alcohol consumption in the workplace, whether such concerns had been reported to them, and if they were aware of fire escapes being used as smoking areas. Unfortunately, the information they received did little to corroborate the Claimant’s concerns.

Dismissed Bar Manager Claims Compensation

Soon after the claimant’s whistleblowing of staff drug use, she perceived a shift in how her colleagues treated her. During sick leave, between 17 January and 6 February, she noticed staff were ignoring her and excluding her from work-related correspondence. 

Towards the end of January, the claimant also discovered she’d been removed from the staff rota. While this was amended after she complained, the culmination of poor treatment significantly impacted her mental well-being. Consequently, on 6 February, she informed the respondent she’d been signed off work for nine days.

However, the respondent appeared to show little empathy, responding, “You’ll have to come and cover this evening’s shift. There’s no one else, hun.” When the claimant didn’t reply, they sent a further message, stating, “Okay well. Since you’re ignoring me. No worries. I’ll cover this shift. Thanks. Get better soon.”

Before the claimant returned to work, the respondent advertised for a “duty manager,” a position that was essentially equivalent to the claimant’s role. Then, upon her return, she was invited to a meeting, where she was informed of her termination of employment due to “business reasons”. 

The claimant had no prior knowledge this would occur, was denied the chance to appeal, and simply received 4 weeks’ pay in lieu of notice, amounting to £1,895.45. As such, the dismissed bar manager pursued an automatically unfair dismissal claim, presenting it to the employment tribunal on 28 April.

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

The employment tribunal first established whether the dismissed bar manager had made a protected disclosure. They explained that had she not, she would be unable to proceed with her claim concerning automatic unfair dismissal from work. This was because, since she’d been employed for less than two years, she couldn’t bring a claim for ordinary unfair dismissal. However, the same rules don’t apply to automatic ones, which include whistleblowing.

Following deliberations, they determined her whistleblowing of misbehaviour to the respondent met the required criteria. Consequently, the tribunal then turned to the claimant’s automatically unfair dismissal claim. Here, they found no “business reason” that could justify the termination of her employment. In fact, it was clear to them that her protected disclosure was the primary reason for her dismissal.

Had the respondent properly addressed the accusations made by the dismissed bar manager, significant changes would have been necessitated within the organisation. As the tribunal put it, “The Claimant had, in effect, rocked the boat at a stressful time.” As a result, they ruled she’d been automatically unfairly dismissed following a protected disclosure and awarded her £33,080 in compensation.

The Meaning of Protected Disclosure

A protected disclosure, also known as “whistleblowing,” is when a worker reports information about wrongdoing they’ve witnessed or experienced. To qualify as one:

  • The worker must have a “reasonable belief” that serious wrongdoing has occurred or is likely to happen in the workplace.
  • The disclosure must be in the public interest.
  • The information must relate to a criminal offence, breach of legal obligation, miscarriage of justice, health and safety danger or environmental damage. It could also concern the deliberate concealment of any of the above matters.

Said disclosure should be made to the employer but could be made to a “prescribed person” if there’s a good reason. When considering the case of the dismissed bar manager, the tribunal deemed she’d made a relevant disclosure because:

  • She witnessed wrongdoing, giving her reasonable belief that it took place.
  • Her disclosure was made in the public interest— after all, she had concerns that her colleague’s conduct was “potentially dangerous”.
  • She provided information related to criminal offences, breaches of legal obligations, and health and safety dangers.

When a protected disclosure is made, eligible individuals are protected by law. As a result, their employer cannot dismiss them or subject them to detriment simply because they’ve “blown the whistle” on misconduct.

What is Not a Protected Disclosure

Unlike the reports made by the dismissed bar manager, among other things, a protected disclosure is (generally) not:

However, should the above provide wider public interest issues, they may then qualify. As such, each case must be assessed individually, determining whether the eligibility criteria for protection have been met.

Dismissed for Speaking Out? Your Next Steps

If an employee has faced dismissal from work following a protected disclosure, several steps can be taken to address the issue. Initially, the individual could attempt to resolve the matter internally. Due to the nature of the problem, this would likely be via a formal grievance.

When the employee raises the grievance, the employer would have to handle it in a legally compliant way. This would include undertaking a fair investigation, adhering to the ACAS Code, and responding in a timely manner.

However, should a formal grievance fail to resolve the issue, the employee could complete ACAS early conciliation before initiating employment tribunal proceedings. In such circumstances, specific criteria and time limits must be complied with before proceeding.

If you have any questions following the case involving the dismissed bar manager or want help resolving your problem, please reach out. With our years of experience, Redmans Solicitors are well-placed to address your queries and provide specialist advice.

If you would like to find out more about the help we provide, please: