FOLLOW US

A Siemens-owned company has successfully defended itself against accusations of retaliation, after an employment tribunal ruled that an engineer’s contract wasn’t renewed due to performance issues, not his whistleblowing over the mishandling of military data.

Performance, Not Whistleblowing, the Real Issue

In a ruling handed down this week, Employment Judge Dilbaag Bansal concluded that Industrial Turbine Co. was justified in not renewing Robert Plauszewski’s contract, stating that the decision was based on his inadequate work performance, not on his concerns about the transfer of sensitive military data. Plauszewski, a design engineer hired in August 2022 to create 3D models and engineering drawings for the gas turbine company’s Warwick site in the U.K., had made several mistakes in his work. These errors, the tribunal found, led to complaints about his performance, which began just weeks into his employment.

Whistleblower Claims Fall Short

Plauszewski had argued that his firing was retaliation for his whistleblowing during a meeting with export control officers. He had raised concerns about classified military data being transferred through Microsoft Teams, which he feared could violate legal requirements or even constitute a criminal act. However, the tribunal found no evidence to support his claim that his line manager had knowledge of or was influenced by these concerns. In fact, the tribunal stated that the line manager had already made the decision to end Plauszewski’s contract in December 2022, well before the meeting took place in January 2023.

Performance Issues Undermine Whistleblower Argument

According to the tribunal, Plauszewski’s performance had been unsatisfactory from the start. He was reported to have made excessive calls, spent too much time on them, and overstepped his bounds by editing colleagues’ models. His work also suffered from errors, such as submitting incorrect drawings to his line manager. These performance issues were flagged by his superiors as early as October 2022. Despite these concerns, the company delayed informing Plauszewski of their decision until January 2023, due to the holiday period. The tribunal’s judgment emphasized that the timeline of events suggested the firing was based on his performance, not any protected disclosures he may have made.

No Need to Assess Whistleblowing Legitimacy

The tribunal noted that it didn’t need to assess whether Plauszewski’s concerns about the data transfer constituted a protected disclosure, since his poor performance had already been established as the primary reason for his dismissal.