Security guard with 7 weeks' service wins unpaid wages but loses whistleblowing claim
A security guard who complained about dirty high-vis vests and lack of rest breaks during the pandemic was not automatically unfairly dismissed, but was awarded £541.40 in unpaid wages.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #public-interest-disclosure
- #unpaid-wages
- #security-guard
- #covid-19
- #rest-breaks
- #zero-hours-contract
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a security guard by Warlite Security Ltd from 22 April to 11 June 2020.
- The claimant complained about dirty high-visibility vests and lack of rest breaks.
- The claimant was sent home mid-shift on 19 May 2020 due to overbooking of guards.
- On 12 June 2020, the claimant's shifts were cancelled after Barnet Hospital requested his removal.
- The claimant was not dismissed; he simply stopped working and found alternative employment.
- The claimant was underpaid wages totalling £541.40.
Timeline
-
Start of employment
Claimant started work as a security guard at Barnet Hospital.
-
Complaint about dirty vests
Claimant complained to a Compass supervisor that high-visibility vests were being handed over without washing, posing a health and safety risk during Covid-19.
-
Sent home mid-shift
Claimant was sent home early due to overbooking of guards; he was not paid for the remainder of the shift.
-
Email complaint about breaks and pay
Claimant emailed Richard Barella and Sue Rideout complaining about being forced to go home, not being paid properly, and inadequate rest breaks.
-
Last shift worked
Claimant worked his last shift at Barnet Hospital.
-
Shifts cancelled
Claimant was told by text not to go in; later that day, Richard Barella called to say he could not return to Barnet Hospital due to client request.
-
Final email complaint
Claimant emailed complaining about short-notice cancellation and lack of breaks; no response was received.
-
Started new job
Claimant obtained replacement work with a different employer.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented his ET1 claim form to the Employment Tribunal.
-
Preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Smeaton held a preliminary hearing; unfair dismissal claim struck out for lack of qualifying service; redundancy claim withdrawn.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's complaints about health and safety issues (dirty high-visibility vests and lack of rest breaks) during the Covid-19 pandemic amounted to protected public interest disclosures, and if so, whether he suffered detriment or was automatically unfairly dismissed as a result. It also had to determine claims for unpaid wages and notice pay.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the whistleblowing detriment and automatic unfair dismissal claims, but upheld the claim for unpaid wages.
The key reasons were:
- The claimant's complaints about dirty vests and lack of breaks were not made in the public interest, as they were personal grievances about his own working conditions.
- The cancellation of his shifts was due to the hospital's request and overbooking, not because of his complaints.
- The claimant was not dismissed; he simply stopped working and found another job.
- The respondent admitted underpaying wages, so the tribunal awarded:
- £541.40 in unpaid wages.
Lessons & takeaways
- Whistleblowing claims require disclosures made in the public interest; personal grievances about your own working conditions are unlikely to qualify.
- Short-serving employees (under 2 years) cannot bring ordinary unfair dismissal claims, but can bring automatic unfair dismissal claims if the reason is whistleblowing or other protected grounds.
- Keep clear records of all complaints and responses; the tribunal will look at whether the employer's actions were genuinely linked to the complaint.
- If you are not dismissed but simply stop receiving shifts, you may need to show you were constructively dismissed or that the employer's conduct amounted to a detriment.
A short-lived role with serious complaints
The claimant worked as a security guard at Barnet Hospital for just seven weeks in 2020, during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic. Almost immediately, he raised concerns about dirty high-visibility vests being reused without washing, and about not receiving adequate rest breaks. He argued these were public interest disclosures about health and safety risks.
However, the tribunal found that his complaints were personal grievances about his own working conditions, not disclosures made in the public interest. The law requires whistleblowers to show they reasonably believed their disclosure was in the public interest – a test the claimant's complaints did not meet.
What went wrong for the claimant
The claimant's shifts were cancelled after Barnet Hospital requested his removal, and he was told not to come in. But the tribunal accepted the respondent's explanation that this was due to overbooking of guards and the hospital's request, not because of his complaints. The claimant was not dismissed; he simply stopped working and found another job. Without a dismissal, his automatic unfair dismissal claim could not succeed.
On the wages claim, the respondent admitted underpaying the claimant by £541.40, so the tribunal awarded that amount. The claimant represented himself, while the respondent had legal representation, which may have made it harder for him to frame his complaints correctly.
What this means for similar claims
This case is a reminder that whistleblowing protection is not automatic for every complaint about working conditions. The disclosure must be made in the public interest – for example, a concern that affects other workers or the public, not just yourself. Short-serving employees should also be aware that they cannot bring ordinary unfair dismissal claims, but can still bring automatic unfair dismissal claims if the reason is a protected disclosure. However, they must prove both that a protected disclosure was made and that it caused the dismissal or detriment.
Similar cases
Furlough refusal during pandemic: HGV driver's constructive dismissal claim fails
An HGV driver with COPD who resigned after his employer refused to furlough him in November 2020 has lost his unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims. The tribunal found the employer correctly interpreted the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme rules.
Field assessor with hypertension wins victimisation claim after raising COVID safety concerns
A field assessor with 10 years' service who raised concerns about returning to work during the pandemic has won a victimisation claim against Vibrant Energy Matters Ltd. The tribunal found the company failed to properly handle her second grievance.
Zero-hours waitress loses unfair dismissal claim after redundancy exclusion
A waitress on a zero-hours contract who was excluded from a redundancy process has had her unfair dismissal claim dismissed, after a tribunal ruled she was never an employee.
Barman dismissed after furlough dispute: whistleblowing claim rejected, but unpaid wages awarded
A barman who claimed he was dismissed for raising health and safety concerns during the pandemic lost his unfair dismissal case, but won over £3,200 for unpaid wages, notice pay and holiday pay.