Clinical Lead with 7 months' service loses whistleblowing unfair dismissal claim
A Clinical Lead who alleged she was dismissed for raising patient safety concerns lost her automatic unfair dismissal claim after the tribunal found no protected disclosures were made and the real reason was poor performance.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #probationary-period
- #poor-performance
- #abrasive-behaviour
- #protected-disclosure
- #health-and-safety
- #asserting-statutory-right
- #overtime-pay
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as Clinical Lead from 27 April 2020 to 7 December 2020.
- The claimant had a difficult relationship with colleagues and was considered abrasive.
- The claimant alleged she made protected disclosures about a doctor's GMC restrictions and patient sedation without consent.
- The tribunal found no protected disclosures were made.
- The claimant's overtime claim was not supported by evidence of agreed additional hours.
- The principal reason for dismissal was poor performance, not any protected act.
Timeline
-
Start as Clinical Lead
Claimant appointed Clinical Lead at Mill Lodge Hospital, subject to 6-month probation.
-
Supervision meeting
Claimant discussed on-call duties with manager Mrs Martin; offered time off in lieu or overtime if authorised.
-
Dr Okoko's assessment
Dr Okoko emailed Mrs Martin a reasonable assessment of claimant's leadership skills.
-
Probationary review meeting
Claimant notified she had not passed probation.
-
Dismissal
Claimant's employment terminated on notice for poor performance.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented claim to Employment Tribunal.
-
Preliminary hearing
Claimant confirmed claims for automatic unfair dismissal, unpaid wages, breach of contract.
-
Full hearing starts
Hybrid hearing at Leicester Employment Tribunal over four days.
-
Judgment
All claims dismissed.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed for making protected disclosures, raising health and safety concerns, or asserting a statutory right, and whether she was owed unpaid wages for overtime.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims, including automatic unfair dismissal, unpaid wages, and breach of contract. The claimant had been employed for only 7 months as Clinical Lead and was still in her probationary period. The principal reason for dismissal was her abrasive behaviour and poor performance, not any protected act. The overtime claim failed because there was no evidence of agreed additional hours.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees with less than two years' service cannot bring ordinary unfair dismissal claims, but can still bring automatic unfair dismissal claims for protected disclosures or asserting statutory rights.
- To succeed in a whistleblowing claim, you must show that you made a qualifying protected disclosure — a genuine concern about wrongdoing in the public interest — and that this was the principal reason for dismissal.
- Abrasive behaviour or performance issues during a probationary period can be a legitimate reason for dismissal, even if the employee has raised concerns internally.
- Keep clear records of any agreed overtime or additional hours to support a claim for unpaid wages.
- Representing yourself at tribunal is possible but challenging; the respondent had legal counsel, which can make a difference in complex cases.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates the difficulty of proving automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing when the employer can point to genuine performance concerns. The claimant, a Clinical Lead with only 7 months' service, was still in her probationary period when she was dismissed. She alleged she had raised concerns about a doctor's GMC restrictions and patient sedation without consent, but the tribunal found that these were not communicated in a way that amounted to protected disclosures.
The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that the claimant had a difficult relationship with colleagues, was abrasive, and had time management issues. The probationary review process had identified these problems, and the decision to dismiss was based on poor performance, not any protected act.
What the respondent could have done differently
While the respondent succeeded, the case highlights the importance of documenting performance issues clearly and giving the employee a chance to respond. The claimant argued she was never given details of complaints against her. Although the tribunal found the respondent's process was sufficient for a probationary dismissal, more detailed feedback might have avoided the dispute.
Why this result matters
For employees, the case is a reminder that raising concerns about patient safety does not automatically protect against dismissal if there are genuine performance issues. The tribunal must be satisfied that the protected act was the principal reason for dismissal. For employers, it shows that a well-documented probationary process can defend against whistleblowing claims, provided the dismissal is genuinely about capability or conduct.
Similar cases
Furniture installer dismissed after raising phone mount safety concern: interim relief revoked
A furniture installer who was dismissed shortly after asking for a phone mount and charger to navigate safely lost his unfair dismissal claim when the tribunal revoked an earlier interim relief order and later dismissed the case.
Live-in carer wins whistleblowing detriment claim but loses constructive dismissal case
A live-in carer with 32 years' experience won a whistleblowing detriment claim after raising safety concerns, but her constructive dismissal claim failed. She was awarded £1,775.
Short-service whistleblower fails to win interim relief after dismissal for unauthorised absence
A machine tool maintenance technician with 11 months' service was refused interim relief after being dismissed for unauthorised absence. The tribunal found he did not have a 'pretty good chance' of proving his whistleblowing claim, but allowed the case to proceed to a full hearing.
Interim relief refused for SHEQ Advisor dismissed after raising fire safety concerns
An employment tribunal refused interim relief to a probationary SHEQ Advisor who claimed she was automatically unfairly dismissed for raising fire safety concerns. The tribunal found she did not have a pretty good chance of proving the email was the principal reason for her dismissal.