Support worker dismissed for protecting himself from aggressive service user: automatic unfair dismissal
A support worker who used physical force to free himself from a service user who grabbed him was automatically unfairly dismissed. The tribunal found the principal reason was his health and safety actions, not misconduct.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #health-and-safety
- #automatic-unfair-dismissal
- #section-100
- #service-user-aggression
- #maybo-techniques
- #cctv-evidence
- #asperger-syndrome
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Support Worker at a secure home for adults with specialist needs.
- On 9 October 2020, the claimant physically intervened when a service user (X) grabbed him, causing injury.
- The claimant was dismissed without notice for gross misconduct (verbal and physical abuse, non-approved MAYBO technique).
- The tribunal found the claimant reasonably believed he was in serious and imminent danger when X grabbed him.
- The tribunal concluded the principal reason for dismissal was the steps the claimant took to protect himself, making the dismissal automatically unfair under s.100(1)(e) ERA.
- The claimant's detriment claims (suspension conditions, length, lack of review) were dismissed.
Timeline
-
Claimant re-employed
Claimant started his second period of employment with the respondent as a Support Worker.
-
Incident with service user X
Claimant arrived at work and encountered service user X in the corridor. X grabbed the claimant, who used physical force to free himself. The incident lasted about 18 seconds.
-
Suspension
Claimant was verbally suspended pending investigation after giving a statement.
-
Suspension letter
Claimant received a formal suspension letter with conditions not to contact employees or discuss the matter.
-
Disciplinary hearing invitation
Claimant was invited to a disciplinary hearing for allegations of verbal abuse, non-approved MAYBO technique, and physical assault.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed without notice for gross misconduct. His mother was informed by phone.
-
Dismissal letter
Claimant received written confirmation of dismissal, citing verbal and physical abuse and non-approved MAYBO technique.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed the dismissal decision.
-
Police no action
Police confirmed no action would be taken against the claimant regarding the incident.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal hearing before Mr Martin; claimant explained events with reference to CCTV.
-
Appeal dismissed
Mr Martin upheld the dismissal decision.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal was automatically unfair because the main reason was that he took appropriate steps to protect himself from serious and imminent danger, rather than for gross misconduct. It also considered whether he suffered detriment due to his suspension conditions.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claimant's claim for automatic unfair dismissal, finding that his reasonable belief in serious and imminent danger when grabbed by a service user meant his actions were protected under health and safety law. The dismissal was therefore automatically unfair.
The claimant's detriment claims regarding his suspension were dismissed. The tribunal found no evidence that the suspension or its conditions were imposed because of his health and safety actions.
Compensation is to be determined at a separate remedy hearing. The tribunal noted the claimant was dismissed without notice, which was a breach of contract.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees who reasonably believe they are in serious and imminent danger and take appropriate steps to protect themselves are protected from automatic unfair dismissal, even if their actions breach internal policies.
- Employers should carefully consider whether an employee's actions in a dangerous situation are protected under health and safety law before dismissing for misconduct.
- The principal reason for dismissal is key: if it is the employee's health and safety actions, the dismissal is automatically unfair regardless of the employer's stated reasons.
- Detriment claims based on suspension conditions are difficult to succeed unless there is clear evidence linking the conditions to the protected health and safety actions.
A split-second decision with lasting consequences
This case highlights the tension between workplace safety policies and an employee's instinct to protect themselves from harm. The support worker, employed at a secure home for adults with specialist needs, was grabbed by a service user on 9 October 2020. In an 18-second struggle, he used physical force to free himself, sustaining an injury. The employer, Caretech Community Services Limited, dismissed him for gross misconduct, alleging verbal abuse, physical assault, and use of a non-approved restraint technique.
Why the tribunal found for the claimant
The tribunal focused on the claimant's state of mind at the moment of the incident. It accepted that he reasonably believed he was in serious and imminent danger when the service user grabbed him. His response — using force to escape — was deemed an appropriate step to protect himself. Under section 100(1)(e) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, such actions are protected, and a dismissal based on them is automatically unfair. The tribunal concluded that the principal reason for dismissal was not the misconduct itself, but the claimant's health and safety actions.
What the employer could have done differently
Caretech could have avoided this outcome by properly investigating the context of the incident. CCTV evidence showed the service user initiated the physical contact. The employer dismissed the claimant without considering whether his belief in danger was reasonable. A more thorough investigation, including reviewing the CCTV and the claimant's account, might have led to a different conclusion. Employers dealing with similar incidents should assess whether the employee's actions were a genuine response to danger before proceeding with disciplinary action.
The wider implications
This case reinforces that health and safety protections apply even when an employee's actions technically breach internal policies. For employees in high-risk roles, knowing that the law protects reasonable self-defence can be crucial. For employers, it serves as a reminder that dismissing an employee for actions taken in a genuine emergency can lead to a finding of automatic unfair dismissal, with no cap on compensation. The remedy hearing will determine the financial award, but the legal principle is already clear: protecting yourself from serious and imminent danger is a protected act, not misconduct.
Similar cases
Before and after school club leader loses Covid-19 safety dismissal claim
A before and after school club leader who refused to attend work during the pandemic claiming serious and imminent danger has lost her unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found her belief was not reasonable given the school's risk assessments.
Drayman dismissed after flagging vehicle overloading: automatic unfair dismissal
A beer delivery driver who repeatedly wrote 'overweight' on his delivery manifests was unfairly dismissed for raising health and safety concerns. The tribunal awarded £6,297 in compensation.
Assistant Manager with 6 months' service loses automatic unfair dismissal claim over Covid shielding
A Betfred assistant manager who refused to return to work claiming he needed to shield his father was dismissed after 6 months. The tribunal rejected his automatic unfair dismissal claim, finding his refusal was motivated by a pay dispute, not a genuine belief in danger.
35-year postman dismissed for walking through prohibited area without hi-vis: dismissal fair
A postman with 35 years' unblemished service was fairly dismissed after walking through a prohibited area without a high-vis jacket, the tribunal ruled. He refused to engage in the disciplinary process.