Probationary dismissal of electrical engineer: discrimination claims rejected
An electrical engineer dismissed during his probationary period for poor performance and a safety incident failed to prove race, age or disability discrimination. The tribunal upheld the employer's decision.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as an electrical engineer from 7 February 2022 and dismissed on 5 May 2022 during his probationary period.
- The respondent had concerns about the claimant's technical competence, including a low score (30%) on an electrical competency test.
- An incident report alleged that the claimant's substandard work on 2 February 2022 caused a colleague to receive a mild electric shock on 28 February 2022.
- The claimant was invited to several probationary review meetings but did not attend, citing sickness due to stress and anxiety.
- The respondent held the probationary review meeting in the claimant's absence on 3 May 2022 and dismissed him on 5 May 2022.
- The claimant's appeal against dismissal was not processed due to an administrative error by the respondent's HR.
Timeline
-
Claimant starts as agency worker
Claimant commenced working as an electrical engineer contractor via agency Morson for the respondent at the Australian High Commission.
-
First employment contract offered
Claimant was offered permanent employment as an electrical engineer, but the offer was put on hold after concerns about his technical abilities were raised.
-
Second employment contract offered
A second offer of employment was made, overriding the earlier hold, and the claimant was issued a new contract.
-
Employment commenced
Claimant's employment with the respondent began.
-
Technical assessment taken
Claimant took the EST1 competency assessment and scored approximately 30%, well below the 70% required.
-
Alleged electric shock incident
A colleague reported receiving a mild electric shock due to exposed wiring from work the claimant had done on 2 February 2022.
-
First probationary review invitation
Claimant was invited to a probationary review meeting on 24 March 2022, but he went on sick leave.
-
Probationary review held in absence
The respondent held the probationary review meeting in the claimant's absence after several rescheduled invitations.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed for unsatisfactory conduct and performance during probation, citing the health and safety breach and failure to follow absence reporting procedure.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed the dismissal, but the appeal was not processed due to an administrative error.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer directly discriminated against the claimant on grounds of race, age, or disability; harassed him; failed to make reasonable adjustments; indirectly discriminated due to disability; discriminated arising from disability; or made unlawful deductions from wages.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. The key reasons were:
- The employer had legitimate concerns about the claimant's technical competence, evidenced by a low test score and a safety incident.
- The decision to dismiss during probation was based on these concerns, not on any protected characteristic.
- The claimant did not attend probationary review meetings, and the employer proceeded reasonably in his absence.
- The failure to process the appeal was an administrative error but did not affect the fairness of the dismissal.
No compensation was awarded as all claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Probationary periods give employers more leeway to dismiss for performance or conduct issues, but they must still follow a fair process.
- If you are invited to a probationary review meeting, attend or request a postponement; failing to engage can be used against you.
- To succeed in a discrimination claim, you need evidence linking the treatment to a protected characteristic, not just a feeling of unfairness.
- An administrative error in handling an appeal does not automatically make a dismissal unfair, especially if the original decision was sound.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates the challenges faced by employees in probationary periods who raise multiple discrimination claims. The claimant, an electrical engineer, was dismissed after less than three months' service due to concerns about his technical ability and a safety incident where a colleague received a mild electric shock. He alleged that his dismissal was motivated by his race, age, and disability (a visual impairment). However, the tribunal found that the employer had genuine, non-discriminatory reasons for the dismissal.
The claimant had scored only 30% on an electrical competency test, well below the required 70%. An incident report linked his work to exposed wiring that caused a shock. The employer invited him to several probationary review meetings, but he did not attend, citing stress and anxiety. The tribunal noted that the employer held the meeting in his absence and dismissed him shortly after. While the claimant's appeal was not processed due to an HR error, the tribunal did not consider this fatal to the employer's case.
What the losing side could have done differently
From the employer's perspective, the dismissal was handled reasonably, but the failure to process the appeal was a procedural flaw. The tribunal accepted it as an administrative mistake, but in other cases, such an error could weaken the employer's position. For the claimant, attending the review meetings or providing medical evidence might have changed the outcome. The tribunal noted that the claimant did not engage with the process, which undermined his claims.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case reinforces that employers can dismiss probationary employees for performance or conduct issues without facing discrimination claims, provided the decision is based on objective evidence. Employees who feel they have been treated unfairly must show a direct link to a protected characteristic. Simply being dismissed during probation, even with procedural imperfections, is not enough to prove discrimination.
Similar cases
Solicitor's discrimination claims against SRA dismissed over jurisdiction and disability status
A non-practising solicitor failed to prove disability and had his discrimination and victimisation claims against the Solicitors Regulation Authority dismissed after the tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction over most allegations.
Teacher wins £5,860 after school failed to disclose grievance documents
A tribunal found that South Essex Academy Trust failed to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled teacher by not providing all relevant grievance documents before a hearing. The teacher was awarded £5,860.27 for injury to feelings and unlawful wage deductions.
Former employee unfairly dismissed but gets only basic award after 70% contributory conduct deduction
A Watford tribunal found Mitie Ltd unfairly dismissed a former employee but reduced his basic award by 70% for his own conduct and made no compensatory award due to a 100% Polkey reduction. He received £1,298.10.
Staff nurse's constructive dismissal claim over whistleblowing fails
A tribunal has dismissed all claims brought by a Band 5 staff nurse against Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust, including constructive dismissal, whistleblowing detriment, and discrimination on grounds of race, age, and religion.