Buyer with 6.5 months' service dismissed for performance and attendance: claims fail
A buyer who was dismissed after just six and a half months for performance and attendance issues lost her claims of automatic unfair dismissal, race and sex discrimination, harassment and victimisation.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #race-discrimination
- #sex-discrimination
- #health-safety-dismissal
- #victimisation
- #harassment
- #long-commute
- #performance-review
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Buyer from 12 March 2018 to 29 September 2018.
- The claimant had a lengthy commute of two hours each way, resulting in 14 occasions of lateness or absence.
- The respondent raised concerns about the claimant's performance, attitude, and reliability.
- The claimant was dismissed following a performance review meeting on 24 August 2018.
- The claimant's grievance and appeal were unsuccessful.
- The tribunal found no evidence of race or sex discrimination, harassment, or victimisation.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced employment as a Buyer at Johnson Matthey plc.
-
Claimant raised concerns
Claimant wrote to Miss Roberts about various employment concerns.
-
Further concerns raised
Claimant again wrote to Miss Roberts about employment matters.
-
Sick leave email
Claimant emailed Miss Roberts requesting sick leave due to fatigue and stress from commute.
-
Text message sick leave
Claimant sent a text message requesting sick leave due to physical and emotional state.
-
Performance review invitation
Miss Roberts invited claimant to a formal performance review meeting.
-
Performance review and dismissal
At the performance review meeting, claimant was informed of her dismissal.
-
Dismissal letter
Miss Roberts sent a detailed dismissal letter setting out reasons for termination.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed against dismissal.
-
Grievance submitted
Claimant submitted a written grievance alleging bullying and race discrimination.
-
Employment terminated
Claimant's employment ended after garden leave.
-
Grievance meeting
Grievance meeting held chaired by Mr Pachiti.
-
Grievance outcome
Grievance not upheld.
-
Appeal meeting
Appeal meeting held chaired by Mr Knowles.
-
Appeal outcome
Appeal unsuccessful.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented claims to the Employment Tribunal.
-
Full merits hearing started
Six-day hearing commenced at Reading Employment Tribunal.
-
Judgment issued
Tribunal issued unanimous judgment dismissing all claims.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed for raising health and safety concerns, subjected to direct race discrimination, race or sex related harassment, or victimisation.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that the claimant's dismissal was due to her performance, attitude and attendance issues, not because she raised health and safety concerns. There was no evidence of race or sex discrimination, harassment or victimisation. No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Short service employees have fewer protections: a fair process can lead to a fair dismissal for conduct or performance.
- Raising health and safety concerns does not give blanket protection if the real reason for dismissal is unrelated.
- Discrimination claims require evidence of less favourable treatment because of a protected characteristic; a long commute is not a protected characteristic.
- Keep records of performance issues and meetings to show a fair process was followed.
This case shows that an employer can fairly dismiss an employee with less than two years' service for performance and attendance issues, provided a fair process is followed. The claimant, a buyer, had a lengthy two-hour commute each way, which led to 14 instances of lateness or absence. Her manager raised concerns about her performance, attitude and reliability, and after a performance review meeting, she was dismissed.
The claimant argued she was automatically unfairly dismissed for raising health and safety concerns about her commute, and also brought claims of race and sex discrimination, harassment and victimisation. However, the tribunal found no evidence to support these claims. The dismissal was for conduct and performance reasons, and the employer had followed a fair process, including a grievance and appeal.
What the employer did right
Johnson Matthey plc had documented the performance issues and held a formal performance review meeting before deciding to dismiss. They also considered the claimant's grievance and appeal, even though they were not upheld. This shows the importance of following a fair procedure, even for short-service employees.
Why this matters for similar claims
Employees with less than two years' service have limited unfair dismissal rights, but can still bring claims for automatic unfair dismissal (e.g., for health and safety reasons) and discrimination. This case highlights that such claims require strong evidence linking the dismissal to the protected act or characteristic. Simply raising a concern about a long commute is not enough to trigger health and safety protection if the real reason for dismissal is poor performance and attendance.
Similar cases
Deputy Design Director loses redundancy and discrimination claims against Greenland UK
A deputy design director who brought claims of unfair dismissal, discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and unlawful deduction from wages after being made redundant has lost all her claims at the London Central Employment Tribunal.
Redundancy dismissal upheld as fair despite disability, race and sex discrimination claims
An Executive Development Consultant with multiple sclerosis lost her unfair dismissal and discrimination claims after the tribunal found the redundancy was genuine and fairly handled.
Fixed-term contract expiry: discrimination claims fail at Middlesex University
A work placement officer with 7 months' service lost her claims of discrimination, harassment, and unfair dismissal after her fixed-term contract expired. The tribunal found no evidence of unlawful treatment.
Social worker's race discrimination claim over 'aggressive' stereotype dismissed
A black social worker with 15 years' service lost her claims of race discrimination and constructive dismissal after an altercation with a white colleague. The tribunal found no evidence of stereotyping or unfair treatment.