Probation dismissal: race discrimination and whistleblowing claims rejected
A security valet officer with nine months' service lost his claims of unfair dismissal, race discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and whistleblowing detriment after a tribunal found the employer's conduct concerns were genuine.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Security Valet Officer from 16 December 2019 until dismissal on 18 August 2020.
- The claimant's probationary period was extended multiple times due to performance and conduct concerns.
- On 10 August 2020, a probation review meeting was held where the claimant complained about Mr Aminul's behaviour.
- The respondent investigated the claimant's complaints and found no evidence to support them.
- The claimant was dismissed on 18 August 2020 for failing to make satisfactory progress during probation.
- The claimant's appeal against dismissal was dismissed on 17 September 2020.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced employment as a Security Valet Officer.
-
First probation review
Claimant mostly met standards but three areas required improvement.
-
Second probation review
Slight improvement noted.
-
Third probation review
Similar outcome to previous reviews.
-
Furlough started
Claimant placed on furlough due to pandemic.
-
Return from furlough
Claimant returned to work.
-
Probation review meeting
Formal meeting to discuss four allegations of misconduct; probation extended to 10 August 2020.
-
Bed purchase incident
Claimant bought a bed from Mr Aminul for £20; claimant alleged pressure, tribunal found no pressure.
-
Coca-Cola incident
Claimant complained about Mr Aminul's rudeness; tribunal found both parties abrupt.
-
Claimant spoke to Mr Aminul
Claimant told Mr Aminul he felt disrespected; no mention of race discrimination.
-
Radio incident
Claimant alleged Mr Aminul shouted over radio; tribunal found incident likely trivial.
-
Pay deduction issue
Claimant informed of one-hour pay deduction for lateness; deduction not made after challenge.
-
Fire alarm and pool incidents
Claimant involved in fire alarm reset and played pool while on shift; Mr Aminul reprimanded him.
-
File note prepared
Mr Aminul wrote a file note about the pool incident; claimant refused to sign.
-
Probation review meeting
Meeting to discuss three allegations; claimant complained about Mr Aminul's discrimination and bullying.
-
Dismissal
Mr Osorio dismissed claimant for unsatisfactory progress during probation.
-
Appeal and pre-action letter
Claimant sent letter appealing dismissal and alleging race discrimination.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal hearing chaired by Edward James.
-
Appeal dismissed
Edward James upheld dismissal and dismissed grievance.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was subjected to direct race discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and automatic unfair dismissal due to protected disclosures, and whether the respondent had legitimate reasons for its actions.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims brought by the claimant. The key reasons were:
- The alleged acts of discrimination and harassment were not proven on the balance of probabilities; many incidents were trivial or explained by non-discriminatory reasons.
- The claimant's complaints about Mr Aminul's behaviour were not protected acts as they did not allege race discrimination or disclose a legal obligation breach.
- The dismissal was for a fair reason (conduct/capability) and the respondent acted reasonably in treating unsatisfactory probation progress as sufficient. No compensation was awarded as all claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Short-service employees on probation have limited protection; employers can dismiss if progress is unsatisfactory, provided they follow a fair process.
- To bring a successful race discrimination claim, you need evidence that race was a factor in the treatment, not just a feeling of unfairness.
- Raising a grievance about a colleague's behaviour does not automatically amount to a protected act unless it specifically alleges discrimination or a legal breach.
- Tribunals expect employees to raise discrimination concerns clearly at the time, not just in hindsight during proceedings.
When performance concerns trump discrimination allegations
This case highlights the difficulty of proving discrimination when an employer has a documented history of performance and conduct issues. The claimant, a security valet officer, was dismissed during his probation after multiple extensions and a series of incidents involving his manager, Mr Aminul. He alleged that Mr Aminul's behaviour amounted to race discrimination and harassment, and that his dismissal was in retaliation for raising concerns.
However, the tribunal found that the claimant's complaints about Mr Aminul were not about race—they were about feeling disrespected and pressured. For example, the bed purchase incident was seen as a private transaction, not forced. The Coca-Cola incident was trivial. The radio and pool incidents were minor workplace disagreements. Without a clear link to race, the discrimination claims could not succeed.
What the employer did right
Ballymore (Millharbour) Ltd had extended the claimant's probation several times, held formal review meetings, and investigated his complaints—even though they found no evidence. The dismissal decision was made by a different manager, Mr Osorio, based on the claimant's failure to meet probation standards. The appeal was handled by Edward James, who upheld the decision. This process, while not perfect, was enough to persuade the tribunal that the dismissal was fair.
Key takeaway for employees
If you believe you are being treated unfairly because of your race, it is vital to say so explicitly at the time. General complaints about rudeness or unfairness will not later be reinterpreted as discrimination. Similarly, whistleblowing claims require you to disclose information that you reasonably believe shows a legal breach—simply raising a grievance about a colleague's attitude is not enough. This case is a reminder that probationary periods give employers significant leeway, and employees must build a clear paper trail if they intend to challenge treatment as discriminatory.
Similar cases
Audit Assistant Manager loses constructive dismissal and race discrimination claim against Grant Thornton
An Audit Assistant Manager with 2 years' service who resigned after being placed on a performance improvement plan has lost his claims of constructive unfair dismissal, race discrimination and whistleblowing detriment. The tribunal found the employer had reasonable cause for its actions.
Probationary employee's race discrimination claims dismissed after tribunal finds evidence unreliable
A Black probationary employee who alleged race discrimination and harassment during her probation at Ted Baker (No Ordinary Designer Label Ltd) has had all her claims dismissed by the Central London Employment Tribunal.
Social worker's race discrimination claim over 'aggressive' stereotype dismissed
A black social worker with 15 years' service lost her claims of race discrimination and constructive dismissal after an altercation with a white colleague. The tribunal found no evidence of stereotyping or unfair treatment.
Labourer's race discrimination claim survives strike-out bid despite late witness statement
A construction labourer who alleges he was subjected to monkey chants and racist abuse can proceed with his claim after the tribunal refused to strike it out, despite his late compliance with orders.