Health and safety concerns not the real reason for dismissal: claim fails for short-service employee
A maintenance officer with less than two years' service claimed he was automatically unfairly dismissed for raising fire door safety concerns. The tribunal found the real reason was capability and conduct, and dismissed the claim.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #health-and-safety-concerns
- #fire-door-installation
- #probationary-period
- #less-than-two-years-service
- #capability-and-conduct
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Maintenance Officer from 16 May 2022 to 30 September 2022.
- The claimant raised concerns about the quality of fire door installation by a subcontractor in July 2022 and again at a supervision meeting on 23 September 2022.
- The respondent had already been considering dismissing the claimant before the 23 September meeting, having sought HR advice and arranged for an HR officer to attend.
- The claimant was dismissed at the end of the 23 September meeting, with the respondent citing unsuitability during probation.
- The claimant had less than two years' service, so could only claim automatic unfair dismissal under section 100(1)(c) ERA.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Michael Hibbert commenced employment as a Maintenance Officer with Upwards Care Solutions.
-
First health and safety concerns raised
The claimant raised concerns about the quality of work by subcontractor Luka Lucas Phiri, particularly regarding fire door installation, via videos sent to Gareth Saunders and Catherine McKeever.
-
First supervision meeting
The claimant attended a supervision meeting with Rachel Youd where concerns about his conduct (giving a screwdriver to a young person) and use of time management software were raised.
-
Respondent sought HR advice
The respondent began taking advice from Peninsula, an external HR advisor, regarding the claimant's employment.
-
Claimant refused to fit fire door
The claimant refused to install a fire door, stating he was unqualified. He also declined a fence repair due to time constraints.
-
Second supervision meeting and dismissal
At a supervision meeting with Rachel Youd and Amy George-Davidson, the claimant raised health and safety concerns about fire doors. After a break to consult Peninsula, the claimant was dismissed with immediate effect.
-
ACAS early conciliation started
The claimant began the ACAS early conciliation process.
-
ACAS certificate issued
The ACAS early conciliation certificate was issued.
-
Claim presented to tribunal
The claimant presented his claim to the employment tribunal.
-
Tribunal hearing
A hybrid hearing was held before Employment Judge Greer. The claimant appeared in person; the respondent was represented by Ms Suleman (solicitor).
-
Judgment issued
Employment Judge Greer issued a judgment dismissing the claimant's claim for automatic unfair dismissal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the principal reason for the claimant's dismissal was that he brought health and safety concerns to his employer's attention, which would make the dismissal automatically unfair under section 100(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's claim for automatic unfair dismissal.
The key reason was that the employer had already decided to dismiss the claimant before he raised his health and safety concerns at the meeting on 23 September 2022. The employer had sought HR advice and arranged for an HR officer to attend the meeting with a view to dismissal. The concerns about capability and conduct – including giving a screwdriver to a young person, issues with time management software, and refusing to fit a fire door – were the real reasons.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees with less than two years' service can only claim unfair dismissal if the reason is automatically unfair, such as whistleblowing or health and safety activities.
- To succeed in an automatic unfair dismissal claim based on health and safety concerns, the employee must show that the concern was the principal reason for dismissal, not just a factor.
- Employers who have already decided to dismiss for capability or conduct before an employee raises a health and safety issue are likely to succeed in defending an automatic unfair dismissal claim.
- Raising health and safety concerns does not automatically protect an employee from dismissal if there are other genuine reasons for the dismissal.
When raising safety concerns isn't enough to protect your job
This case shows the limits of the protection given to employees who raise health and safety concerns. The claimant, a maintenance officer with just 4.5 months' service, believed he was dismissed because he flagged problems with fire door installations by a subcontractor. But the tribunal found that the employer had already decided to let him go for other reasons.
The key moment came at a supervision meeting on 23 September 2022. The claimant raised his concerns about fire doors, but the employer had already sought advice from external HR advisors and arranged for an HR officer to attend the meeting with the intention of dismissing him. The employer's concerns about the claimant's conduct – including giving a screwdriver to a young person and refusing to fit a fire door – and his capability were the real drivers.
What the employer did right
Upwards Care Solutions had documented the claimant's performance issues and taken HR advice before the meeting. This allowed them to show that the decision to dismiss was already in motion before the health and safety concerns were raised. The tribunal accepted that the principal reason was capability and conduct, not the protected act.
Why this matters for similar claims
For employees with less than two years' service, the bar for bringing an unfair dismissal claim is high. They can only rely on automatically unfair reasons, such as health and safety activities. But as this case demonstrates, simply raising a concern is not enough – the employee must show that the concern was the main reason for the dismissal. If the employer can point to other genuine reasons that were already being considered, the claim will fail.
This case is a reminder that timing and evidence are crucial. Employees should document their concerns and any negative treatment that follows. Employers should ensure they have clear records of performance issues and follow proper procedures, even during probationary periods.
Similar cases
Short-service employee wins wage claim but unfair dismissal struck out
A former employee with less than two years' service had her unfair dismissal claim struck out, but won £340 in unauthorised deduction and breach of contract claims.
Former employee's unfair dismissal claim struck out after failing to engage with tribunal
A former employee who failed to attend hearings and ignored tribunal orders had his unfair dismissal claim struck out. The tribunal also noted he had less than two years' service, which normally bars such claims.
Unfair dismissal claim struck out: the two-year service rule in action
A former employee of the University of Bradford had his unfair dismissal claim struck out because he had less than two years' service. His harassment and disability discrimination claims were also struck out for procedural failures.
Less than two years' service: unfair dismissal and redundancy claims struck out, but wages claim succeeds
A former employee who had worked for Velocity Delivery Services Limited for less than two years had their unfair dismissal and redundancy claims struck out, but was awarded £1,985.61 for an unauthorised deduction from wages.