Health and safety concerns not linked to dismissal: a capability case that succeeded
A Direct Adviser with 20 years' experience was dismissed for performance after raising workload concerns. The tribunal found no causal link between the health and safety complaints and the dismissal, ruling it was a fair capability dismissal.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #health-and-safety-concerns
- #workload
- #capability-dismissal
- #competent-adviser-status
- #performance-improvement-plan
- #bonus-discretionary
Key facts
- Claimant raised concerns about heavy workload and long hours in September and October 2021.
- Claimant's file reviews in December 2021 and January 2022 were marked red or amber.
- Claimant's Competent Adviser Status was removed on 3 February 2022 due to performance concerns.
- Claimant was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan on 4 April 2022.
- Claimant was dismissed on 17 May 2022 for capability/performance reasons.
- The tribunal found no causal link between the health and safety concerns and the dismissal or detriments.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as a Direct Adviser at Gatehouse Bank Plc.
-
Competent Adviser Status granted
Claimant was awarded CAS based on three case reviews.
-
Raised workload concerns
Claimant raised concerns about workload with line manager Alina Rauta.
-
Teams Talk meeting
Claimant raised concerns about long working hours at a meeting with HR.
-
File review marked red
Two of claimant's files were marked red in routine file reviews.
-
Enhanced supervision imposed
Claimant was informed she would be subject to enhanced supervision due to file review results.
-
CAS removed and PIP started
Claimant's Competent Adviser Status was removed and she was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan.
-
Grievance raised
Claimant raised a written grievance alleging bullying and unfair treatment.
-
PIP commenced
Performance Improvement Plan started after claimant returned from sick leave.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed due to continued unacceptable performance.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed for raising health and safety concerns under section 100(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, or whether the dismissal was for capability/performance reasons.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that the claimant's health and safety concerns were genuine, but there was no causal link between those concerns and the subsequent performance management process or dismissal. The employer had legitimate performance issues, evidenced by red/amber file reviews and removal of Competent Adviser Status, and followed a fair process including a Performance Improvement Plan. No compensation was awarded as the claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Raising health and safety concerns does not automatically protect you from dismissal if there are genuine performance issues.
- Employers can dismiss for capability if they have clear evidence of poor performance and follow a fair process.
- A Performance Improvement Plan can be a reasonable step before dismissal, even if you have raised concerns about workload.
- The timing of events matters: if performance issues predate or are separate from your concerns, the link may be broken.
This case shows that raising health and safety concerns about workload does not create a 'safe harbour' from performance management. The claimant, a Direct Adviser with 20 years' experience, raised concerns about heavy workload and long hours in September and October 2021. However, her file reviews in December 2021 and January 2022 were marked red or amber, leading to enhanced supervision and removal of her Competent Adviser Status. She was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan and dismissed for capability in May 2022.
What the employer did right
Gatehouse Bank Plc had a clear paper trail of performance issues that predated the health and safety concerns. They followed a structured process: file reviews, enhanced supervision, removal of status, a PIP, and a dismissal meeting. The tribunal found no evidence that the health and safety concerns motivated any of these steps. The employer's actions were within the range of reasonable responses for a capability dismissal.
What the claimant could have done differently
While the claimant's concerns about workload were genuine, the tribunal noted that the performance issues were separate. If the claimant had been able to show that the performance management was a response to her raising concerns (e.g., sudden criticism after her complaints), the outcome might have been different. Keeping a diary of events and seeking legal advice early could have helped build a stronger case.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that automatic unfair dismissal for health and safety reasons requires a causal link between the concerns and the dismissal. If an employer can show a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason (like capability) and a fair process, the claim will fail. Employees should be aware that raising concerns does not protect them from genuine performance management, but they should also watch for signs of retaliation, such as sudden negative treatment after raising issues.
Similar cases
Retirement discussions and PIP: dismissal for capability upheld despite age discrimination claim
A Fragrance Accounts Manager with 11 years' service was fairly dismissed for poor performance after a Performance Improvement Plan, and the tribunal rejected her claim that retirement discussions amounted to age discrimination.
Senior IT analyst dismissed without chance to respond: procedural unfairness in a performance improvement plan
A senior IT analyst with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after being handed a pre-prepared dismissal letter at a meeting described as a PIP review. The tribunal found the employer had already made up its mind.
Senior HR manager's constructive dismissal claim dismissed: resignation was for better job
A senior HR manager who resigned after accepting a higher-paid job failed to prove constructive unfair dismissal or discrimination. The Birmingham tribunal found no breach of contract by National Highways Ltd.
Probation extensions and safeguarding referral: disability discrimination and constructive dismissal claim rejected
A tribunal dismissed claims of disability discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal brought by a learning mentor with dyslexia and anxiety/depression, finding the employer acted reasonably throughout.