Dismissed by WhatsApp after failing to commute in snow: automatically unfair claim fails
A personal assistant with less than two years' service was summarily dismissed via WhatsApp after she could not get to work due to heavy snowfall. The tribunal rejected her claim that the dismissal was automatically unfair for health and safety reasons.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #personal-assistant
- #summary-dismissal
- #snow-commute
- #whatsapp-message
- #verbal-warning
- #health-and-safety-reason
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a personal assistant from 8 March 2022 until summary dismissal on 10 March 2023.
- On 10 March 2023, the claimant was unable to commute to work due to heavy snowfall and sent messages on a WhatsApp group.
- The respondent gave the claimant a verbal warning via WhatsApp for her poor attempt to commute.
- The claimant responded to the warning, which the respondent considered rude and defensive.
- Later that evening, the respondent summarily dismissed the claimant by WhatsApp message.
- The claimant had less than two years' service and could only claim automatically unfair dismissal under s.100 ERA 1996.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began working as a personal assistant for the respondent.
-
Night shift completed
The claimant completed a night shift and the next day discovered she was pregnant.
-
Pregnancy discovered
The claimant found out she was pregnant but did not inform the respondent.
-
Snow day and dismissal
Heavy snowfall prevented the claimant from commuting. She sent WhatsApp messages about her struggle. The respondent issued a verbal warning, the claimant replied, and the respondent dismissed her via WhatsApp.
-
Termination letter sent
The respondent sent a letter confirming the reasons for dismissal.
-
Claim presented
The claimant brought a claim for unfair dismissal.
-
Case management hearing
The claimant accepted that the respondent was unaware of her pregnancy at dismissal, limiting the claim to automatically unfair dismissal under s.100 ERA 1996.
-
Final hearing
The tribunal heard evidence and reserved judgment, dismissing the claim.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal was automatically unfair under section 100 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which protects employees who leave work or refuse to attend in circumstances of serious and imminent danger. The claimant argued that the heavy snowfall created such danger, but the respondent said the dismissal was for her rude reply to a warning about her commute.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim for automatically unfair dismissal.
- The key reason was that the principal reason for dismissal was the claimant's conduct (her response to the verbal warning), not any health and safety reason.
- The claimant had less than two years' service, so she could only bring a claim for automatically unfair dismissal under section 100 ERA 1996.
- The tribunal found that the respondent was not aware of any serious and imminent danger; the snowfall was a general weather condition, not a specific workplace danger.
- No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees with less than two years' service can only claim unfair dismissal if the reason is automatically unfair, such as health and safety, whistleblowing, or discrimination.
- To rely on the health and safety automatic unfair dismissal protection, the employee must show that the employer's principal reason for dismissal was a protected act, such as refusing to work in serious and imminent danger.
- A dismissal for conduct (e.g., being rude in a message) is unlikely to be automatically unfair even if the underlying dispute involved safety concerns.
- Employers should ensure they have a clear reason for dismissal and document it, as the tribunal will look at the real reason, not what the employee believes.
A WhatsApp dismissal over a snowy commute
This case shows the limits of the automatic unfair dismissal protection for health and safety. The claimant, a personal assistant, was dismissed by WhatsApp after she could not get to work due to heavy snowfall. She had less than two years' service, so she could only bring a claim if the reason was automatically unfair.
The tribunal heard that on 10 March 2023, the claimant sent messages on a WhatsApp group about her struggle to commute in the snow. The respondent gave her a verbal warning via WhatsApp for her poor attempt to commute. The claimant replied, which the respondent considered rude and defensive. Later that evening, the respondent summarily dismissed her by WhatsApp.
Why the claim failed
The claimant argued that the dismissal was because of health and safety concerns about travelling in the snow. However, the tribunal found that the principal reason for dismissal was her conduct in responding to the warning. The respondent was not aware of any serious and imminent danger; the snow was a general weather condition affecting many people, not a specific workplace danger. The tribunal noted that the claimant had not raised any health and safety concerns herself at the time.
What this means for similar claims
This case is a reminder that the automatic unfair dismissal protection for health and safety is narrow. It applies only when the employer's principal reason for dismissal is a protected act, such as refusing to work in serious and imminent danger. Here, the dismissal was about the claimant's attitude, not the snow. For employees with short service, it is crucial to understand that ordinary unfair dismissal rights do not apply, and the only route is an automatically unfair reason. Employers should also be careful to ensure that any dismissal is for a fair reason and properly documented, even if the employee has less than two years' service.
Similar cases
Trade promoter with 20 years' service unfairly dismissed but denied compensation over secret commission
The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair, but refused to award any compensation because after-dismissed evidence showed the employee had sought a secret commission from a customer.
Senior managers dismissed without investigation: unfair and wrongful dismissal
Five senior managers were summarily dismissed for gross misconduct without any investigation or appeal. The tribunal found the dismissals unfair and wrongful, and awarded unpaid wages, holiday pay, and notice pay.
Technical manager dismissed for bypassing safety device: conduct dismissal upheld
A Technical Services Manager was fairly dismissed after bypassing an overheat stat on an air handling unit and swearing at a colleague. The tribunal found the employer's investigation and decision were within the range of reasonable responses.
Dismissed by email: a day's delay that cost the claim
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim was thrown out because he contacted ACAS two days after the three-month deadline, even though he read his dismissal email the day after it was sent.