Tribunal Dismisses Former Employee's Whistleblowing and Unfair Dismissal Claims Against Hartlepool College

Hartlepool College of Further Education

The claims, which went before a three day hearing at an Employment Tribunal in June 2025 dismissed the claims made by the former Employee, ruling his termination of employment was down to Redundancy & not for 'Whistleblowing'.

20th August 2025

An employment tribunal has dismissed claims brought by a former employee against Hartlepool College of Further Education, ruling that his dismissal was due to redundancy and not linked to whistleblowing as the former employee had argued. .

The claimant, Mr Peter Musgrove, worked as a joinery and maintenance technician at the college from January 2020 until September 2023. In January 2024, its claimed he lodged complaints with the tribunal alleging he'd been subjected to detriment after making a protected disclosure, which led to his automatic unfair dismissal from the college for whistleblowing.

The complaints reportedly arose after Mr Musgrove raised concerns about fitting a lock to a science laboratory fridge that was said to have contained a modified E. coli strain of bacteria. He claimed he was not told of its contents, believed it to be hazardous, and recorded his concerns to the college.

The tribunal was chaired by Employment Judge Legard at Middlesbrough Court

The tribunal, chaired by Employment Judge Legard, accepted that Mr Musgrove’s entry on the system amounted to a protected disclosure.

However, the panel concluded that the disciplinary action taken against him, which resulted in a written warning, stemmed from concerns about his behaviour towards colleagues rather than the actual protected disclosure.

Its claimed, his redundancy in September 2023 was genuine and part of wider cost-saving measures introduced by the college after a voluntary redundancy scheme failed to meet required savings, with the college following a fair procedure, including consultation meetings, consideration of alternative roles, and an offer of appeal.

The tribunal also ruled that Mr Musgrove’s detriment claim was brought outside the statutory time limit and therefore could not be considered, leading to the unanimous judgment which dismissed all the claims of detriment, automatic unfair dismissal, and ordinary unfair dismissal.

The panel concluded that Hartlepool College had acted reasonably and that the dismissal was wholly attributable to redundancy.

Its not known whether the college sought to recover its costs of the case.