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.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #interim-relief
- #health-and-safety
- #protected-disclosure
- #furniture-installer
- #phone-mount
- #dismissal
Key facts
- Mr Heys was employed as a furniture installer from 28 February to 15 June 2023.
- On 15 June 2023, Mr Heys raised a concern about needing a phone mount and charger to navigate safely.
- Mr Heys was dismissed by phone call shortly after raising the concern.
- The respondent's dismissal letter cited misconduct including refusal to attend site without a phone holder.
- The interim relief application initially succeeded but was later revoked on reconsideration.
- At the final hearing, the claimant did not attend and the claims were dismissed.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Mr Heys began working as a furniture installer for Atic Group Ltd.
-
Dismissal
Mr Heys raised a health and safety concern about needing a phone mount and charger; he was dismissed by phone call.
-
Claim presented
Mr Heys presented a claim for unfair dismissal and applied for interim relief.
-
Amendment granted
REJ Franey granted amendment to include interim relief application.
-
Response submitted
Respondent submitted a response to the claim, but it was not before the judge at the interim relief hearing.
-
Interim relief hearing
Employment Judge Howard granted interim relief, ordering continuation of employment and payment of salary.
-
Reconsideration
Employment Judge Howard revoked the interim relief order, finding no jurisdiction under s128 ERA for s100(1)(c) claim.
-
Final hearing
Claimant did not attend; Employment Judge Dunlop dismissed all claims.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal was automatically unfair because he raised a health and safety concern about needing a phone mount and charger, and whether interim relief was available for such a claim.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. The interim relief order was revoked because the claim under s100(1)(c) ERA (circumstances of danger) did not give the tribunal jurisdiction to grant interim relief under s128 ERA. At the final hearing, the claimant did not attend, so the claims were dismissed.
No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Interim relief is only available for certain types of automatic unfair dismissal claims, such as those related to health and safety in specific circumstances.
- Failing to attend the final hearing can result in your claim being dismissed entirely.
- Raising a health and safety concern does not automatically make a dismissal unfair; the specific legal basis must be proven.
A short-lived victory
A furniture installer who was dismissed after asking for a phone mount and charger to navigate safely initially won an interim relief order requiring his employer to continue paying him. But that victory was short-lived. The tribunal later revoked the order, finding it had no legal power to grant interim relief for the type of health and safety claim he had brought. At the final hearing, the claimant did not attend, and all claims were dismissed.
What went wrong
The claimant had been employed for only four months when he raised a concern about needing a phone mount and charger to navigate to a job in Glasgow. He was dismissed by phone call shortly after. The employer's dismissal letter cited misconduct, including refusal to attend site without a phone holder. The claimant argued the dismissal was automatically unfair because he had raised a health and safety concern.
However, the tribunal clarified that interim relief under s128 ERA is only available for certain specific types of health and safety claims, such as those under s100(1)(a) or (b) – for example, where an employee is dismissed for carrying out health and safety activities. The claimant's situation fell under s100(1)(c) (circumstances of danger), which does not qualify for interim relief. This procedural point meant the earlier order had to be revoked.
Why it matters
This case highlights the importance of understanding the precise legal basis for a claim. Even a genuine health and safety concern may not trigger the same protections as other types of whistleblowing or health and safety activities. For employees with short service, the automatic unfair dismissal route is often the only option, but it must be correctly categorised. Employers should also ensure they respond properly to health and safety concerns, as a dismissal in such circumstances can still be challenged – but the claimant must be prepared to attend the hearing and present their case.
Similar cases
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.
Interim relief denied: Construction manager's whistleblower claim fails high threshold
A construction manager who claimed she was dismissed for raising health and safety concerns has had her interim relief application rejected. The tribunal found factual disputes meant she did not meet the high threshold for interim relief.
Whistleblowing protections for contract workers: detriments and dismissal upheld
A contract worker who raised health and safety concerns was subjected to detriments and dismissed. The tribunal found he was a worker, not an employee, but still protected under whistleblowing law.