Fashion graphic designer dismissed before two years' service: tribunal rejects health and safety claim

A dismissal that came too soon for protection

This case highlights the vulnerability of employees with less than two years' continuous service. The claimant, a fashion graphic designer, was dismissed just five weeks before her two-year anniversary, meaning she could not bring a standard unfair dismissal claim. Instead, she had to rely on automatic unfair dismissal for raising health and safety concerns and on disability discrimination.

The tribunal found that the employer, UBI Limited, had genuine concerns about the claimant's performance and time management before the pandemic. When she raised concerns about returning to the office due to her mother's shielding status and her own health conditions, the employer initially insisted on her return but later allowed her to continue working from home. The performance review and subsequent dismissal were based on her work output and conduct, not her health and safety complaints.

What the employer did right

UBI Limited had documented performance concerns before the lockdown, which helped establish that the dismissal was not linked to the claimant's protected acts. The tribunal also noted that the claimant had not mentioned her disability (arthritis and fibromyalgia) until after the performance review, making it difficult to prove that the employer knew or should have known about her disability earlier.

Why this matters for similar claims

This case serves as a reminder that the timing of dismissal can be critical. Employees should be aware that the two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims means they have limited protection in the early years of employment. For employers, it shows the importance of keeping clear records of performance issues and ensuring that any dismissal is based on genuine, documented reasons rather than a protected characteristic or complaint.