An employee who was dismissed after raising concerns about holiday pay calculations affecting colleagues has succeeded in claims for automatic unfair dismissal and detriment at an Employment Tribunal in Dundee.
MML Legal has successfully represented Jennifer Cameron in Employment Tribunal proceedings against Hutchison Technologies Ltd, following her dismissal in June 2025.
The Tribunal found that concerns raised by Ms Cameron regarding the calculation of holiday pay for a group of engineers amounted to a disclosure concerning a matter of public interest.
Employment Judge Stuart Neilson concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, the principal reason for Ms Cameron’s dismissal was the disclosure she had made regarding the incorrect calculation of holiday pay.
Her claims for automatic unfair dismissal and detriment were found to be well founded and succeeded.
A further hearing will be required to determine remedy.
Ms Cameron joined Hutchison Technologies Ltd as a full-time service and support administrator in January 2025.
The Employment Tribunal heard that her working arrangement involved spending two days each week at the company’s Dundee head office and three days working from home.
As part of her duties, Ms Cameron was responsible for calculating holiday pay for engineers employed by the business.
During her employment, she became concerned that a spreadsheet used for those calculations contained incorrect salary information and was therefore incorrectly calculating holiday pay entitlement.
The Tribunal heard that Ms Cameron initially raised the issue verbally with her line manager between January and April 2025.
She raised the matter again in late May or early June after an engineer separately complained about holiday pay.
The issue was not simply about Ms Cameron’s own employment rights. Her concern related to the holiday pay entitlement of a group of employees — an important distinction in the subsequent whistleblowing proceedings.
According to the Tribunal evidence, Ms Cameron was called to a meeting on 10 June 2025 and informed that she would be required to work from the office five days per week.
The following morning, while working from home, she received an email informing her that her employment was being terminated with immediate effect.
The respondent maintained that there had been performance issues during Ms Cameron’s employment.
However, the Tribunal was not persuaded by important parts of the evidence presented in support of that position.
Employment Judge Stuart Neilson said that he did not find two of the respondent’s witnesses “to be credible witnesses”, identifying:
“a number of areas of inconsistency in their evidence that caused me to doubt the credibility of what was being told.”
The Tribunal also noted that documentary evidence had not been provided to substantiate alleged financial losses or investigations referred to during evidence.
In contrast, the Judge described Ms Cameron as a “credible witness”.
A central question in a whistleblowing case is whether the disclosure in question meets the legal requirements for protection.
In Ms Cameron’s case, the Tribunal accepted that her concerns regarding the calculation of holiday pay for a group of engineers were capable of engaging the public-interest element of whistleblowing protection.
Judge Neilson stated:
“In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that raising the incorrect calculation of holiday pay for a group of engineers is a public interest issue and it was reasonable for the claimant to consider it as such.”
That finding is significant.
Whistleblowing is sometimes associated with dramatic allegations of fraud, criminal conduct or major corporate wrongdoing. In employment law, however, protected disclosures can arise in other circumstances, including where an employee reasonably believes that legal obligations are not being complied with and the disclosure is made in the public interest.
Each case depends on its own facts and the statutory requirements must still be satisfied.
The Tribunal had to consider the reason for Ms Cameron’s dismissal and the evidence presented by both parties.
Judge Neilson ultimately concluded:
“On balance it is more likely than not that the principal reason for dismissal was the disclosure made by the claimant regarding the incorrect calculation of the holiday pay.”
He continued:
“In arriving at this conclusion, I also take into account the inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence put forward by the respondent which are, to my mind, a strong indication that the true reason for dismissal was the disclosure.”
The Tribunal therefore found Ms Cameron’s claims for automatic unfair dismissal and detriment to be well founded.
Employment disputes are about considerably more than legal arguments and Tribunal hearings. Losing a job can have a profound personal and financial impact, particularly where an employee believes they have suffered because they raised concerns at work.
Following the judgment, Ms Cameron described the effect the experience had on her life:
“The last year has been one of the hardest of my life. Losing my job didn’t just affect my career – it affected every part of my life. My confidence disappeared, my mental health suffered, and I found myself questioning my own judgement after simply trying to do the right thing.”
She added:
“I wasn’t trying to create problems – I was trying to prevent them. Speaking up to protect others should be seen as an act of integrity – not a reason to lose your livelihood.”
MML Legal is pleased to have represented Jennifer and helped her achieve this important outcome.
A further Employment Tribunal hearing will determine the remedy arising from the successful claims.
UK employment law provides protection for workers who make certain disclosures about wrongdoing that meet the requirements of a protected disclosure.
Broadly, whistleblowing protection may apply where a worker discloses information which they reasonably believe tends to show certain types of wrongdoing, and they reasonably believe the disclosure is in the public interest.
This can include matters such as a breach of a legal obligation, criminal offences, dangers to health and safety, environmental damage, miscarriages of justice or attempts to conceal relevant wrongdoing.
Whether a disclosure qualifies for legal protection depends on the circumstances of the individual case.
Importantly, an employee does not necessarily need to use the word “whistleblowing” when raising the issue for a disclosure potentially to be protected.
What was said, what information was disclosed, what the worker reasonably believed and the wider circumstances can all matter.
An employee who is dismissed because they have made a protected disclosure may be able to bring a claim for automatic unfair dismissal.
This differs in important ways from an ordinary unfair dismissal claim.
In particular, the usual requirement for an employee to have two years’ qualifying service does not apply to a claim that a dismissal was automatically unfair because of protected whistleblowing.
That can be particularly important for employees who have only recently started a job.
Workers may also have protection against suffering a detriment because they have made a protected disclosure.
Whistleblowing law is complex, however, and raising a complaint at work does not automatically make it a protected disclosure. The facts, nature of the concern, reasonable belief, public-interest requirement and reason for any subsequent treatment can all be important.
If you believe something is wrong in your workplace, it can be important to obtain advice at an early stage.
The way a concern is raised and the information recorded at the time may later become important evidence.
Where appropriate, keeping copies of relevant correspondence, noting when concerns were raised and recording subsequent meetings or decisions can help establish a clear timeline of events.
Employees should also consider their employer’s whistleblowing or grievance procedures where applicable and take advice about the appropriate route for raising their particular concern.
If your treatment at work changes after speaking up for example, you are subjected to disciplinary action, changes to your duties or working arrangements, exclusion, disadvantage or dismissal obtaining employment law advice promptly can be particularly important.
Employment Tribunal time limits can be short, and anyone considering a claim should not assume that an internal grievance or appeal will extend the applicable deadline.
This judgment is also a useful reminder for employers about the importance of handling concerns raised by employees carefully and consistently.
A concern should be assessed on its substance rather than simply how an employee labels it.
Where an employee raises a matter that could potentially amount to a protected disclosure, employers should consider the issue properly, document the steps taken and ensure that subsequent decisions concerning that employee can be supported by clear evidence.
That is particularly important where performance or conduct concerns arise around the same time as a disclosure.
Good record-keeping, fair procedures and contemporaneous evidence can be crucial if an employment decision is later challenged.
Whistleblowing disputes can be legally complicated and personally difficult.
Whether you are an employee concerned about treatment after raising wrongdoing, or an employer needing advice on handling a disclosure appropriately, obtaining specialist advice early can help you understand your position and your options.
MML Legal advises employees and employers across Dundee and Scotland on whistleblowing, unfair dismissal and wider employment law matters.
If you believe you have been dismissed or treated unfairly after raising concerns at work, speak to our employment law team.
Contact MML Legal today:
📞 01382 206000