Health and safety dismissal claim fails: short service and conduct issues
A manufacturing employee with less than two months' service claimed he was automatically unfairly dismissed for raising ladder safety and Covid concerns. The tribunal found the real reason was his aggressive conduct and performance issues.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #health-and-safety
- #covid-19
- #ladder-safety
- #detriment
- #automatically-unfair
- #less-than-two-years-service
Key facts
- The claimant started work on 7 December 2020 and was dismissed on 19 January 2021.
- He raised concerns about unsafe ladder use and Covid-19 precautions.
- The respondent's decision-maker, Mr Trott, was unaware of the ladder concerns.
- The claimant had a history of attitude and performance issues before the Covid disclosures.
- The claimant was dismissed after an aggressive confrontation with his manager on 18 January 2021.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Mr Branson began working for Cova Security Gates Ltd.
-
Ladder safety concerns raised
Mr Branson spoke to supervisor Kestutis Zaliausaas and production manager Kevin Conway about unsafe step ladder use.
-
Covid exposure incident
Ross Meeten left work after his partner tested positive for Covid. Mr Branson decided to take the next day off as a precaution.
-
WhatsApp exchange about Covid
Mr Branson messaged Mr Conway about Mr Meeten's positive test and expressed concerns about workplace safety.
-
Email to Mr Conway
Mr Branson emailed Mr Conway detailing his Covid concerns and implying staff should self-isolate.
-
Further WhatsApp messages and email
Mr Branson sent Covid guidance to Mr Conway and received a response outlining the respondent's measures. Mr Branson decided not to return to work.
-
Return to work and confrontation
Mr Branson returned to work, learned of another Covid case, and had two heated conversations with Mr Conway on the shop floor. He was escorted from the premises.
-
Dismissal letter
Mr Branson received a letter of dismissal from Mr Trott, citing his aggressive behaviour and performance issues.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed under section 100(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because he raised health and safety concerns, or whether the dismissal was for other reasons such as conduct or capability. It also had to decide whether he suffered a detriment for raising those concerns.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that the claimant had raised genuine health and safety concerns about ladder use and Covid-19 precautions, but the decision-maker, Mr Trott, was unaware of the ladder concerns and dismissed the claimant primarily because of his aggressive confrontation with his manager and his history of attitude and performance issues.
No compensation was awarded as the claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees with less than two years' service can still bring a claim for automatically unfair dismissal if the reason is health and safety, but they must prove the health and safety concern was the principal reason for dismissal.
- A decision-maker's knowledge of the health and safety concern is crucial; if the decision-maker was unaware, the claim is unlikely to succeed.
- Raising health and safety concerns does not protect an employee from dismissal for unrelated conduct or capability issues.
- Tribunals will examine the timing and context of the dismissal to determine the real reason, including any history of performance or behaviour problems.
A short-lived employment ends in dispute
The claimant started work at Cova Security Gates Ltd on 7 December 2020 and was dismissed just over a month later, on 19 January 2021. During his short tenure, he raised concerns about unsafe ladder use and Covid-19 precautions. He believed these concerns led to his dismissal, making it automatically unfair under health and safety law.
However, the tribunal found that the decision to dismiss was driven by the claimant's conduct, not his health and safety disclosures. On 18 January 2021, he had two heated confrontations with his manager, Kevin Conway, on the shop floor, leading to him being escorted from the premises. The dismissal letter from Jonathan Trott cited his aggressive behaviour and performance issues.
Why the health and safety claim failed
Crucially, Mr Trott, the decision-maker, was unaware of the ladder safety concerns. He only knew about the Covid-related messages, but the tribunal accepted that the principal reason for dismissal was the claimant's conduct, not those messages. The claimant had also been given a verbal warning about his attitude before the Covid concerns were raised, which undermined his argument that the health and safety disclosures were the real reason.
Under section 100(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, a dismissal is automatically unfair if the principal reason is that the employee raised health and safety concerns. But the tribunal found that the claimant's aggressive behaviour on 18 January was the trigger, and the respondent had legitimate concerns about his capability and conduct.
What this means for similar claims
This case shows that raising health and safety issues does not give employees blanket protection from dismissal. If there is evidence of separate conduct or performance problems, and the decision-maker is not aware of the health and safety concerns, the claim is unlikely to succeed. Employees with less than two years' service can still bring such claims, but they must prove the health and safety concern was the real reason for the dismissal, not just a factor in a broader dispute.
Similar cases
Before and after school club leader loses Covid-19 safety dismissal claim
A before and after school club leader who refused to attend work during the pandemic claiming serious and imminent danger has lost her unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found her belief was not reasonable given the school's risk assessments.
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.
Whistleblowing constructive dismissal claim fails: tribunal finds no evidence of detriment
A former employee who resigned and claimed constructive dismissal for whistleblowing and health and safety reasons has lost her case after the tribunal found no evidence of detriment or dismissal for those reasons.
Nurse who raised PPE concerns during pandemic wins whistleblowing detriment claim
A district nursing team leader who raised concerns about inadequate PPE and risk assessments during the COVID-19 pandemic has won her claim for detriment against Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board. The tribunal found she was isolated from her team and her role was changed after making protected disclosures.