Abstract: An ongoing tribunal case involving Google UK reveals the authorized dangers when whistleblowing disclosures are adopted by redundancies, even when unrelated. With the Employment Rights Act strengthening harassment prevention duties in October 2026, HR groups should guarantee investigations are complete, decision-making is impartial from complaints, and timing is rigorously managed. Even respectable selections can create legal responsibility if influence on the whistleblower was foreseeable and poorly dealt with.
A latest, high-profile employment tribunal declare, involving Google UK, has introduced renewed give attention to how companies navigate whistleblowing, sexual harassment and organisational decision-making throughout restructures, significantly as they unfold on the similar time.
Though the tribunal’s judgment is but to be introduced, the case already provides useful classes for HR professionals navigating misconduct investigations alongside position adjustments or redundancy. This can grow to be much more very important because the authorized obligations round harassment and whistleblowing safety are attributable to be tightened later this yr.
A “marketing campaign of retaliation” at Google UK
The claimant, Ms Woodall, a senior worker in Google’s UK gross sales operate, was made redundant as a part of an alleged “marketing campaign of retaliation” after she reported her supervisor’s critical sexual misconduct, which concerned inappropriate discussions and behavior in direction of his purchasers and colleagues.
The supervisor was later sacked for gross misconduct, consequently. Google has since denied the allegation that Woodall was made redundant for whistleblowing, sustaining that her redundancy fashioned a part of a wider reorganisation and that subsequent occasions have been “completely regular enterprise selections”.
Even earlier than the tribunal reaches its conclusion, the dispute highlights the dangers employers face when whistleblowing disclosures are adopted by adjustments to obligations, reporting traces or roles.
Account reallocations and redundancy selections in giant organisations
One of many central allegations on this case considerations the reassignment of consumer accounts whereas the misconduct investigation was ongoing. From an employer’s perspective, account motion could also be deemed routine or commercially justified, nonetheless tribunals are alert to timing.
Employers should recognise the significance of evidencing that such adjustments are genuinely customary follow and unrelated to any ongoing investigations or complaints raised by staff. Clear paper trails, supported by witness proof, are sometimes decisive in persuading tribunals that actions have been justifiable and unrelated.
The place whistleblowers are later chosen for redundancy, employers should present that selections have been transparently reached, primarily based on goal standards, and utilized persistently throughout the workforce. In giant organisations, this could sometimes contain demonstrating that opinions have been thorough, independently assessed and well-documented.
Independence and procedural equity
Guaranteeing independence in decision-making is crucial in whistleblowing instances. Tribunals typically look at how witnesses are chosen in the course of the investigation, whether or not the investigation scope expanded appropriately as new points emerged, and whether or not findings have been dealt with impartially. A strong, impartial course of can considerably scale back litigation danger.
The place doable, redundancy or efficiency selections involving a whistleblower must be taken by people unconnected to the unique grievance or investigation. Whereas this can be difficult in smaller groups, bigger employers are usually anticipated to pick people unrelated to any level of the declare to assist the investigation, making certain procedural equity.
Causation versus coincidence
Claims not often relaxation on a single act. On this case, Ms Woodall alleges that she was subjected to a cumulative “marketing campaign of retaliation” following her whistleblowing disclosure. This might be central to the tribunal’s evaluation and carries vital danger for employers.
Tribunals assess alleged retaliation by contemplating the totality of proof. Adjustments to accounts, obligations, or position standing are weighed alongside the employer’s acknowledged causes and supporting documentation. The place explanations are nicely evidenced and align with established follow, employers are higher positioned to display coincidence moderately than causation.
Witness credibility holds weight
Nevertheless, documentary proof is barely a part of the image. Witness credibility typically proves pivotal, as decision-makers within the investigatory course of – or these corroborating the witnesses’ declare – are required to elucidate their actions and ideas below scrutiny. Even strong paperwork might be undermined by unconvincing testimony.
Proof of wider inappropriate behaviour, significantly the place sexual harassment is alleged, could certainly lend weight to the declare. For instance, on this case, allegations of a “boys’ membership” tradition is a big a part of the broader context.
Tribunals could contemplate exchanges in a paper path, corroborated witness accounts and whether or not administration or HR totally addressed inappropriate remarks or conduct. Whereas tradition alone doesn’t set up legal responsibility, it could actually affect how actions are interpreted.
Notion issues
Even the place employers imagine selections have been respectable or points with tradition and behavior have been correctly tackled, tribunals place weight on how actions may moderately be perceived by the whistleblower.
The sincerity and consistency of witnesses, the readability of explanations given on the time, and sensitivity to the person’s place all matter. A tribunal could settle for that causes have been respectable but nonetheless discover detriment if the influence on the claimant was foreseeable and poorly managed, affecting each legal responsibility and treatment.
Sensible safeguards for HR
The case additionally unfolds towards vital legislative change. Since October 2024, employers have been below an enhanced responsibility to take affordable steps to forestall sexual harassment, with the danger of a 25% uplift in compensation for claimants the place they fail to take action.
This responsibility is predicted to strengthen additional below the Employment Rights Act, coming into drive in October 2026, shifting in direction of a requirement to take all affordable steps.
When restructures overlap with misconduct investigations, HR groups ought to guarantee:
- The investigations are complete
- Determination-making is impartial from the grievance the place doable
- Coaching, insurance policies and danger assessments are actively carried out
- All ranges of employees partake in coaching and adjust to insurance policies to make sure administration is held to rigorous requirements
Maybe the clearest lesson is the necessity to make sure that whistleblowing doesn’t taint subsequent decision-making. Even when a tribunal in the end finds no causal hyperlink, employers face vital danger the place there’s any suggestion that disclosures influenced redundancy, self-discipline, account adjustments, pay or value determinations. The case additionally serves as a reminder that even giant, well-known employers aren’t immune from tribunal scrutiny.
On the similar time, this case sends a wider sign to staff, significantly ladies, that considerations about behaviour, particularly sexual misconduct, might be raised and challenged.
As such, for HR leaders particularly, the message is evident: strong processes, cultural vigilance and authorized consciousness at the moment are important, not non-compulsory, in an evolving regulatory panorama.
Key takeaways
As legislative protections round whistleblowing and harassment strengthen, contemplate these safeguards on your organisation:
- Recognise that timing creates danger, even when selections are justified. When whistleblowing disclosures are adopted by account adjustments, redundancy or position changes, tribunals look at timing carefully. Are you able to proof that such adjustments are genuinely customary follow and supported by clear paper trails? Even routine enterprise selections want rigorous documentation.
- Construct independence into your decision-making processes. The place doable, guarantee redundancy or efficiency selections involving a whistleblower are taken by people unconnected to the unique grievance or investigation. Bigger employers are anticipated to display that opinions have been thorough, independently assessed and procedurally truthful.
- Perceive that tradition shapes how your actions are interpreted. Proof of wider inappropriate behaviour, equivalent to a ‘boys’ membership’ tradition, could affect how tribunals view administration selections. Are you actively addressing inappropriate remarks and conduct by means of coaching, insurance policies and danger assessments that maintain all ranges of employees, particularly administration, to rigorous requirements?
- Do not forget that notion issues as a lot as intention. Tribunals place weight on how actions may moderately be perceived by the whistleblower. Even the place you imagine selections have been respectable, if the influence was foreseeable and poorly managed, you should still face legal responsibility. Are you contemplating sensitivity to the person’s place alongside your small business rationale?
Rhys Wyborn is a companion and member of the employment workforce at regulation agency, Shakespeare Martineau.
