Probationary concierge dismissed for performance issues, not whistleblowing
An employment tribunal has ruled that a concierge officer was fairly dismissed during her probation period due to genuine performance concerns, not because she raised safety issues with councillors.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #race-discrimination
- #protected-disclosure
- #probation-dismissal
- #performance-issues
- #cctv-monitoring
- #linkline-failures
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Concierge Officer from 12 August 2019 until dismissal on 23 March 2020.
- The claimant raised a grievance on 13 November 2019 alleging victimisation and harassment by her line manager Mr Butt.
- The claimant sent emails to councillors in November 2019 and January 2020 raising concerns about fire safety and leaks.
- The claimant was dismissed during her probation period for poor timekeeping, failure to complete CRM reports, failure to use Linkline, inappropriate emails, and covering a CCTV camera.
- The tribunal found that Mr Butt did not make the alleged racist comments.
- The tribunal found that the protected disclosures were not the principal reason for dismissal; the dismissal was due to genuine performance concerns.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started as Concierge Officer with a two-week induction.
-
Second probation meeting
Mr Butt raised performance issues: timekeeping, failure to complete CRM reports, and leaving the office door unlocked.
-
Grievance raised
Claimant raised a grievance alleging victimisation and harassment by Mr Butt.
-
Email to Councillor Lambert
Claimant emailed Councillor Lambert about housing quality and safety concerns, and complaints about Mr Butt.
-
Third probation meeting
Further performance issues raised: lateness, failure to use Linkline, closing office early, and inappropriate emails.
-
Fire incident
A small fire occurred outside Fraser House; claimant called fire brigade and Linkline.
-
Fourth/fifth probation meeting
Further performance issues: timekeeping, CRM, Linkline, and covering CCTV camera.
-
Unsatisfactory performance meeting
Meeting proceeded in claimant's absence; further criticisms including covering CCTV and emails to councillors.
-
Dismissal recommendation
Mr Butt issued letter recommending dismissal; claimant given opportunity to respond.
-
Dismissal
Claimant dismissed by letter with one week's notice, effective 29 March 2020 (later amended to 1 April 2020).
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed because she made protected disclosures about fire safety and leaks, and whether she was subjected to race discrimination or harassment.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims, including automatic unfair dismissal for protected disclosures and race discrimination.
The key reason was that the respondent had genuine performance concerns about the claimant, which were the real reason for dismissal. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had made protected disclosures, but they were not the principal reason for her dismissal.
The claimant's complaints of race discrimination were also rejected. The tribunal found that her line manager did not make the alleged racist comments, and that the treatment she received was due to performance issues, not her race.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Making a protected disclosure does not automatically protect you from dismissal if there are genuine performance or conduct issues.
- Probationary employees have fewer rights: they cannot claim ordinary unfair dismissal if they have less than two years' service.
- Tribunals will look at the real reason for dismissal, so it's important to keep clear records of performance issues and warnings.
- If you believe you are being treated unfairly because of a protected disclosure, gather evidence that shows a direct link between the disclosure and the dismissal.
When whistleblowing doesn't protect against poor performance
This case shows that raising legitimate concerns about safety does not give an employee blanket protection from dismissal if there are genuine performance issues. The concierge officer had been on probation for less than eight months when she was dismissed for a series of performance failures, including persistent lateness, failure to complete required reports, and covering a CCTV camera with a plastic bag.
What the employer did right
The London Borough of Hounslow had documented the performance concerns in a series of probation meetings, giving the claimant opportunities to improve. The tribunal accepted that the decision to dismiss was based on these concerns, not on the emails the claimant sent to councillors about fire safety and leaks. The employer's consistent focus on performance issues, and the fact that the protected disclosures were only raised after the performance concerns had already been identified, helped persuade the tribunal that the disclosures were not the real reason for dismissal.
What this means for similar claims
Employees who believe they have been dismissed for whistleblowing need to show that the protected disclosure was the principal reason for their dismissal. This is a high bar, especially when there is clear evidence of performance or conduct issues. The case also highlights the limited rights of probationary employees, who cannot bring ordinary unfair dismissal claims if they have less than two years' service. For employers, it reinforces the importance of maintaining clear, documented performance management processes, even when an employee has raised concerns that could be protected disclosures.
Similar cases
HR Business Partner dismissed after one month for whistleblowing: £74,540 awarded
An HR Business Partner who raised concerns about a flawed redundancy process was dismissed after just one month. The tribunal awarded £74,540 after striking out the employer's response.
Registered Nurse lost constructive dismissal claim over protected disclosure and discrimination
A tribunal dismissed all claims by a dementia ward nurse who resigned after suspension, finding no link between his protected disclosure and the employer's actions.
Registered mental health nurse loses race discrimination claims against Cygnet
A registered mental health nurse who alleged race discrimination and harassment by Cygnet NW Limited has had all his claims dismissed by the Sheffield Employment Tribunal.
Protected disclosure claim fails: probationary dismissal for capability upheld
A regional manager dismissed during her probationary period for capability reasons lost her claim that she was automatically unfairly dismissed for whistleblowing. The tribunal found her protected disclosure played no part in the decision.