Case law & trending topics

What's happening and what does this mean for you?

London bar manager unfairly dismissed for whistleblowing receives £33k

With the party season in full swing, this case highlights the fine line between work and social events and the lessons employers can learn.

About the case

The claimant, Nadine Follone, worked as Bar Manager at a South London venue. At the point of her dismissal in early 2023, she had less than two years’ service.

By December 2022, Follone had raised concerns about staff conduct, including allegations of:

Staff taking drinks from the bar during and after work hours.
Drug use, including cocaine, at work events.
Breaches of licensing rules, such as smoking in prohibited areas.

The Claimant raised concerns with relevant management, the owner of the venue, and an external HR Consultancy engaged by the business.

London bar manager unfairly dismissed for whistleblowing receives £33k

Though there were significant delays, an investigation into her grievances was conducted by the consultancy.

Findings supported the claimant’s concern regarding drugs and alcohol, and the lack of distinction between work and social events.

The claimant’s mental health deteriorated following the investigation because her colleagues were “ignoring her” – a claim later supported by the employee’s accounts at the Tribunal.

It also emerged that both the business owner and the investigating officer disclosed to employees that Follone had instigated the investigation.

While on sick leave, Follone was removed from the rota and, upon her return, was dismissed with immediate effect for “business reasons.”
The dismissal process lacked transparency: no notes were provided, and her request to appeal was denied.

The tribunal found Follone had been unfairly dismissed, as her whistleblowing was the principal reason for her termination. The tribunal ruled that:

Her complaints about drugs and alcohol at the workplace amounted to protected disclosures that she reasonably believed to be true and in the public interest.
The dismissal violated whistleblowing protections under employment law.

What can we learn from this case?

Managing social events and blurred lines

Although this case may seem extreme and unique, it underscores the risks associated with work and social events, particularly when alcohol or drugs are involved. The judge’s remarks in this case serve as a stark warning:

These warnings also apply to alcohol use alone, and employers must exercise caution when organising workplace events.

Whilst employers have always had a general duty of care and vicarious liability, with the increased responsibility on employees to take positive, proactive and preventative action to prevent sexual harassment, there has never been a time when focus has been needed more.

Recent surveys indicate that nearly 90% of employees would prefer a bonus over a company party. Additionally, the lack of engagement has been linked to changes in workplace relationships due to increased remote work.

With this in mind, what measures should an employer take if they wish to proceed as usual?

“The use or potential use of drugs on the premises and a drug acceptance culture might lead to unacceptable sexual or violent behaviour… There was also a risk to the health and safety of the individual staff members concerned.”

Credit someone here…

What can we learn from this case?

Key steps to mitigate risks include:

Regularly update and communicate expectations around conduct, alcohol consumption, and discrimination.
Share policies and expectations with employees ahead of events.
Define the scope of the company-sponsored event and set expectations for post-event behaviour.
Limit alcohol availability, monitor consumption, and ensure plenty of food and non-alcoholic options are provided.
Assign staff members to oversee behaviour and address concerns during the event.
Encourage group travel arrangements and support employees traveling long distances or alone.

What can we learn from this case?

Dismissal of “short service” employees

We know that employees with less than two years’ service are typically unable to claim what we call “ordinary” unfair dismissal. However, exceptions include cases involving whistleblowing, discrimination, or health and safety concerns.

The Employment Rights Bill promises “day one” rights, but until it takes effect – likely in Autumn 2026 – this limitation remains.

Employers must be aware of the high risk associated with “automatic” unfair dismissal claims, which carry uncapped awards and potential additional payouts for “injury to feelings.”

Any situation where an employee has raised concerns can pose a risk, but common triggers for these claims include:

Whistleblowing.
Discrimination.
Health and safety complaints.

To mitigate risk:

Ensure thorough investigations and document reasons for dismissal.
Distinguish termination decisions from other concerns raised by the employee.
In whistleblowing claims, the employee must prove whistleblowing was the principal reason for dismissal. In discrimination cases, the burden of proof shifts to the employer once the employee establishes sufficient evidence of a breach of the Equality Act 2010.

Having sound reasons at this stage is vital and a failure to follow a procedure can result in a 25% uplift in any award.

For advice on how to mitigate risk in these situations, please seek guidance from Moorepay’s Advice Line.

Win the day with easy HR & payroll software

Check out our HR Software