A university whistleblower who was sidelined from her job in Cheltenham after alleging faculty budgets were being blown on overseas travel and consultancy fees spoke of her delight at winning her case.

Janet Merrigan took the Cheltenham-based University of Gloucestershire to an employment tribunal after claiming she was given an “ultimatum” to move departments following disclosures about the institution’s funds.

As business development manager within the Faculty of Education, Humanities and Sciences she had flagged up concerns about excessive staff pay, overseas travel and consultancy fees at the university in a series of emails and conversations with bosses.

After the disclosures came to light – she claims files were removed from her computer – she was excluded from meetings and sidelined in her role. Following a four-day tribunal in Bristol, Employment Judge Jim Tindal upheld Mrs Merrigan’s complaints and ordered the university to pay her £6,000 for injury to feelings.

“I am delighted I have won, but most importantly that my concerns were taken seriously,” Mrs Merrigan said. “I never wanted to take my case to an external tribunal, but the internal procedures were flawed and despite my best efforts, the university did not want to hear what I had to say, or address my serious concerns over financial flaws.

“This was at a time when the university faced grave financial challenges and had been placed on the Higher Education Funding Council’s ’At Risk’ list. I had no other alternative than to take these concerns to the tribunal, to make sure that the public interests were served.

“I want to carry on doing a job that I love and for the university to learn from this experience and make sure no one has to take a case like this again. We need an open and transparent culture, where staff can speak out on issues of public interest and concerns over finance, knowing that they will be addressed.”

Mrs Merrigan, who still works at the university, was helped by her trade union Unison and represented by Thompsons solicitors.

Joanne Kaye, regional manager for Unison, said: “At a time when public services are facing the deepest cuts in a generation, it is vital that there are people like Jan who will ensure financial transparency and will not look the other way, or be too frightened to speak out, when there are serious problems.”

Christopher Howells, representing the university, claimed Mrs Merrigan’s concerns were not of legal irregularities, but more about financial overspending. He said they therefore did not count as protected disclosures against her employer.

The university said it was disappointed with the verdict and said the tribunal had cost in excess of £150,000 at a time of severe cuts to public spending.

“The University of Gloucestershire is disappointed with the Tribunal’s decision which concluded that Mrs Merrigan had suffered some detriment,” a university spokeswoman said in a statement. “The university notes that although a number of extremely serious and spurious allegations were made by Mrs Merrigan in respect of financial irregularities within the university, these were neither upheld nor featured in the verdict.

“The university is also concerned about the accuracy of some evidence which Mrs Merrigan gave at the tribunal hearing.

“The university is considering whether to appeal the decision.

“It is disappointing that Mrs Merrigan has chosen to make public her views before written confirmation of the tribunal decision has been received.”

The university said it had tightened its financial controls and is to report an operating surplus for 2009-10 in excess of £3.5 million because of the “management interventions” in the faculty where Mrs Merrigan works.

“The university is focused on reshaping the university’s structure to ensure that it is prepared for the future higher education market,” the spokeswoman said.

“Unsubstantiated claims by Mrs Merrigan undermine the efforts of staff working towards a brighter future.”