Installer's Claims Against BFT Mastclimbing Limited Succeed, Tribunal Rules

The tribunal found that Mr Psaila began working as an installer for BFT Mastclimbing Limited in March 2019. Between 1 March 2024 and 24 June 2024, the claimant made four alleged public interest disclosures via emails.

According to the tribunal's findings, the respondent dismissed Mr Psaila on 31 July 2024. The respondent claimed that the dismissal was by reason of redundancy due to reduced work.

The tribunal heard that Mr Mackinnon, the Operations Manager, carried out a redundancy scoring exercise for 18 installers. The tribunal found that Mr Psaila was given a score of 26, which placed him in the bottom quarter of the group.

The tribunal found that Mr Psaila had raised a grievance on 18 July 2024 regarding his working hours and being spoken down to. The tribunal heard that during this time, Mr Mackinnon told the claimant to "Shut up" and "Get on with it". The tribunal also heard that Mr Mackinnon told the claimant he was not interested in the time he left his house.

The tribunal found that the claimant made qualifying and protected disclosures. It also found that the claimant was subjected to detriments for making those disclosures.

Regarding the dismissal, the tribunal found that "The reason or principal reason for the dismissal was that he had made those disclosures and the dismissal was therefore unfair." Consequently, the tribunal found that the dismissal was automatically unfair.

The tribunal found that even if the dismissal had been due to redundancy, it was unfair on both procedural and substantive grounds. The tribunal said the dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses.

The tribunal found that there had been no consultation with employees or trade unions before the redundancy criteria were decided. It also found that the redundancy criteria for performance and skills competencies had a subjective element. The tribunal found that there was no clear evidence to explain why the claimant scored so low on the skills criterion. Finally, the tribunal found that Mr Mackinnon was influenced by his dealings with the claimant regarding the issue of long hours, which fed into the scores.

• Loss of wages: £1,916.12
• Pension loss: £191.44
• Compensatory award for automatic unfair dismissal: £2,107.56
• Injury to feelings: £20,000
• Interest: £3,285
• Total injury to feelings: £23,285
• Total: £25,392.56

This case shows that workers are protected by law when they raise concerns about wrongdoing in the workplace. These reports are known as protected disclosures.

If an employer treats a worker poorly or dismisses them because they have made such a disclosure, the worker may have a claim for detriments or unfair dismissal.

Anyone with a problem at work can get free, impartial advice from Acas.

• Acas: The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service: a free, impartial public body that advises on problems at work and helps employers and workers settle disputes.
• Automatically unfair dismissal: A dismissal for a reason the law always treats as unfair, such as whistleblowing or pregnancy.
• Claimant: The person who brings the claim, usually the worker or former worker.
• Compensatory award: The part of unfair dismissal compensation for the money actually lost, such as wages and pension, up to a legal limit.
• Detriment: Unfair treatment that puts someone at a disadvantage at work, short of dismissal.
• Injury to feelings: Compensation for the upset and distress caused by discrimination.
• Liability: Whether the employer is legally responsible: in other words, whether the claim succeeds.
• Protected disclosure: A report of wrongdoing that qualifies for the law's protection for whistleblowers.
• Public interest disclosure: The legal name for whistleblowing: a worker reporting certain kinds of wrongdoing, such as a danger to health and safety or a breach of the law, because they believe it is in the public interest.
• Redundancy: Dismissal because the employer needs fewer people to do a kind of work, or the workplace closes.
• Remedy: What the tribunal orders when a claim succeeds, usually compensation.
• Respondent: The employer, or other person or organisation, the claim is made against.
• Unfair dismissal: Being dismissed without a fair reason, or in an unfair way. Most employees need to have worked for a minimum period to claim it.

Case number: 3308979/2024
Claimant: Mr Nathaniel Psaila
Respondent: BFT Mastclimbing Limited
Tribunal: Employment Tribunal, Watford (Employment Judge Isabel Manley)
Decision date: 20 August 2026

Read the full decision on GOV.UK

Topics: public interest disclosure, unfair dismissal, protected disclosure, detriment

This report explains a published tribunal decision in plain English. It is general information, not legal advice.

Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.