Property Maintenance Manager with less than 2 years' service dismissed over bullying allegations: claims rejected
A property maintenance manager who was dismissed after less than two years' service following bullying complaints has lost his claims of unfair dismissal, age discrimination and trade union detriment. The tribunal found the dismissal was fair and not motivated by age.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #short-service-dismissal
- #age-discrimination
- #harassment-related-to-age
- #trade-union-detriment
- #breach-of-contract-notice-pay
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Property Maintenance Manager from 29 July 2019 to 21 June 2021.
- The claimant was dismissed on 21 June 2021 with immediate effect and paid one month's pay in lieu of notice.
- The respondent decided to dismiss the claimant due to serious concerns about his management style and its impact on staff retention.
- The claimant had less than two years' service at the time of dismissal.
- The tribunal found no evidence that age played any part in the decision to dismiss or in the manner of dismissal.
Timeline
-
Claimant started employment
Claimant commenced employment as Property Maintenance Manager at Melin Homes Ltd.
-
Exit interview with Ryan Walters
An exit interview with a staff member raised concerns about the claimant's management style.
-
Claimant went on annual leave
Claimant went on annual leave, returning on 21 June 2021.
-
Exit interview with Ieuan Jones
Another exit interview referenced pressure put on staff by the claimant.
-
Exit interview with Craig Sheedy
Craig Sheedy described the claimant as a 'cancer' and a 'bully' in his exit interview.
-
Claimant dismissed
Claimant was called to a meeting without prior warning and dismissed with immediate effect. He was paid one month's pay in lieu of notice.
-
ET1 claim presented
Claimant presented his claim to the Employment Tribunal, alleging unfair dismissal, discrimination, and other complaints.
-
Preliminary hearing (strike out and deposit)
Employment Judge Harfield struck out several claims and ordered deposits for others.
-
Final hearing commenced
Final hearing on remaining claims (direct age discrimination, harassment, breach of contract, trade union detriment).
-
Judgment issued
Tribunal dismissed all remaining claims, finding no age discrimination or other unlawful treatment.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was directly discriminated against because of his age, subjected to harassment related to age, subjected to a detriment for trade union membership, or suffered a breach of contract in the way his notice pay was handled.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims brought by the property maintenance manager against Melin Homes Ltd.
The key reason was that the claimant had less than two years' service, so he could not bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal also found no evidence that age played any part in the decision to dismiss or in the manner of dismissal. The claims of age discrimination, harassment related to age, trade union detriment, and breach of contract were all rejected.
No compensation was awarded as all claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees with less than two years' service generally cannot claim ordinary unfair dismissal, unless the reason is automatically unfair (e.g., discrimination or whistleblowing).
- To succeed in a discrimination claim, there must be evidence that the protected characteristic (e.g., age) was a factor in the treatment – mere speculation is not enough.
- Employers can dismiss for conduct concerns based on exit interviews and staff complaints, provided they carry out a reasonable investigation and follow a fair process.
- Claimants representing themselves should be aware that tribunals will scrutinise claims carefully and may require a deposit to proceed with weak claims.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates the challenges faced by employees with less than two years' service who are dismissed following complaints about their behaviour. The property maintenance manager was dismissed after three exit interviews raised serious concerns about his management style, with one staff member describing him as a 'cancer' and a 'bully'. The employer decided to dismiss him immediately upon his return from annual leave, paying one month's pay in lieu of notice.
The claimant argued that his age (he was older than his colleagues) was the real reason for his dismissal and that he was harassed because of his age. He also claimed that he suffered a detriment because of his trade union activities and that his notice pay was handled in breach of contract. However, the tribunal found no evidence to support these allegations.
What the losing side could have done differently
For the claimant, the fundamental problem was the lack of evidence linking his age to the dismissal. The exit interviews all focused on his management style and its impact on staff retention, not on his age. The tribunal noted that the claimant had less than two years' service, which meant he could not bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim – a key limitation that many employees may not be aware of.
For the employer, Melin Homes Ltd, the case shows that acting swiftly on staff complaints can be defensible, provided the employer has a genuine belief in the misconduct and carries out a reasonable investigation. However, the employer should ensure that the process is fair and that the employee is given an opportunity to respond to allegations before a decision is made.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case reinforces the importance of the two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims (unless the dismissal is for an automatically unfair reason). It also highlights that discrimination claims require concrete evidence of a link between the protected characteristic and the treatment. Tribunals will not infer discrimination simply because the claimant is a member of a protected group. For employees considering bringing a claim, it is crucial to gather evidence that shows the protected characteristic was a factor in the decision, not just a possibility.
Similar cases
Dismissed after customer withdrew security badge: a long-serving employee's unfair dismissal claim fails
A Watch Manager with 25 years' service was fairly dismissed after Airbus withdrew his security badge, the tribunal ruled. He was awarded £2,245.67 for unpaid notice pay but his unfair dismissal and age discrimination claims failed.
Café worker automatically unfairly dismissed for asserting right to written contract
A café worker with only six months' service was automatically unfairly dismissed after asking for a written contract. The tribunal awarded over £2,000 including injury to feelings for age discrimination.
Taxi driver found to be employee and worker, awarded £5,181 for unlawful deductions
A private hire taxi driver was found to be an employee of the vehicle owner and a worker of the dispatch company. He was awarded £5,181.48 for unlawful deduction of wages, but his age discrimination claim was dismissed.
Payments consultant allowed to add minimum wage and wrongful dismissal claims
A tribunal has granted a payments consultant permission to amend his claim to include wrongful dismissal and National Minimum Wage complaints, but refused to add automatic unfair dismissal. The case highlights the hurdles of bringing claims when working through a limited company.