Support worker who threw water at service user loses whistleblowing unfair dismissal claim
A support worker who was dismissed for gross misconduct after throwing water at a service user has lost her claim that the real reason was whistleblowing. The tribunal found no protected disclosures had been made and the dismissal was solely due to the incident.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #support-worker
- #zero-hours-contract
- #gross-misconduct
- #suspension-pay
- #cctv-evidence
- #lado-referral
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a support worker and administrative assistant from 1 November 2019 to 6 February 2021.
- On 18 December 2020, an incident occurred where the claimant threw water at a service user after being grabbed.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct following the incident.
- The claimant alleged she made protected disclosures about food safety, medication errors, understaffing, and unsafe recruitment.
- The tribunal found that none of the alleged disclosures were qualifying protected disclosures.
- The dismissing officer was unaware of any alleged disclosures and the dismissal was solely due to the misconduct.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started work as support worker and administrative assistant.
-
Food safety concern raised
Claimant reported out-of-date food in a service user's fridge; matter was resolved.
-
Understaffing incident
Claimant expressed concern about being one of two staff on duty during a chaotic shift.
-
Payroll capacity discussion
Claimant said she could not combine support work with payroll; respondent agreed to handle payroll.
-
New resident arrival
Claimant was left with four service users including a challenging teenager.
-
Incident with service user
Claimant threw water at a service user after being grabbed; CCTV footage captured the event.
-
Administrative duties removed
Respondent ceased providing administrative work to the claimant.
-
LADO referral
Incident referred to Local Authority Designated Officer.
-
Dismissal
Claimant summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Investigation meeting
Claimant attended investigation meeting with Mr. Olaleye.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employee had made qualifying protected disclosures about food safety, medication errors, understaffing, and unsafe recruitment, and if so, whether those disclosures were the reason for her dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims, including automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing, breach of contract, unauthorised deduction of wages, and failure to provide written particulars.
The key reason was that none of the concerns raised by the employee met the legal definition of a protected disclosure. The alleged disclosures were either not in the public interest, not reasonably believed to show a legal obligation breach, or were simply operational discussions. Critically, the dismissing officer was unaware of any of these concerns and dismissed solely because of the misconduct incident.
No compensation was awarded as the claims failed in their entirety.
Lessons & takeaways
- Raising a concern at work does not automatically make it a protected disclosure — it must meet specific legal criteria, including being in the public interest.
- A dismissing officer's knowledge of any alleged disclosure is crucial; if they are unaware, a whistleblowing claim is unlikely to succeed.
- Employers should ensure decision-makers are independent and aware of any protected disclosures before making a dismissal decision.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates the difficulty of bringing a successful whistleblowing claim when the alleged disclosures do not meet the legal threshold. The employee, a support worker with 14 months' service, raised concerns about out-of-date food, understaffing, and medication errors. However, the tribunal found these were either resolved informally, lacked evidence of a legal breach, or were not made in the public interest.
The incident that led to dismissal — throwing water at a service user — was captured on CCTV and resulted in a referral to the Local Authority Designated Officer. The employer's investigation and dismissal process focused entirely on this misconduct, and the dismissing officer had no knowledge of the employee's earlier concerns.
What the losing side could have done differently
For the employee, the key lesson is that simply raising concerns at work does not guarantee whistleblowing protection. To qualify, a disclosure must be made in the public interest and show a legal obligation breach, danger to health and safety, or other specified matters. Here, the tribunal found the concerns were either not reasonably believed or were internal operational matters.
For employers, this case demonstrates that a clear misconduct investigation, independent of any prior concerns, can successfully defend a whistleblowing claim. However, it is wise to ensure decision-makers are aware of any protected disclosures to avoid the risk of a finding that they were a factor.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This decision reinforces that whistleblowing claims require more than an employee's subjective belief that they raised a concern. The tribunal must be satisfied that the disclosure meets the statutory definition. For employees, it highlights the importance of understanding what constitutes a protected disclosure and ensuring it is properly documented. For employers, it confirms that a fair process focused on genuine misconduct can withstand a whistleblowing challenge, provided the decision-maker is uninfluenced by any protected disclosures.
Similar cases
Bus driver dismissed after driving onto pavement to overtake: dismissal fair
A bus driver with 13 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after driving onto a pavement to overtake another bus. The tribunal rejected claims of race and religious discrimination.
Delivery manager dismissed for 'intention to steal' wins race discrimination claim
A black Caribbean delivery manager was unfairly dismissed and racially stereotyped after a returned iPhone went missing. The tribunal found Royal Mail's investigation was flawed and the claimant was treated less favourably than a hypothetical white comparator.
Customer service assistant dismissed for attempted strike on teenager: tribunal upholds gross misconduct decision
A customer service assistant who tried to strike a teenage customer with an open hand was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct, the tribunal ruled. His race discrimination claims against third-party security guards were also dismissed.
22-year service host dismissed for theft: Asda's decision upheld as fair
An employment tribunal has upheld Asda's dismissal of a service host with 22 years' service after CCTV showed her taking coins and bags for life without paying. The tribunal found the decision was within the range of reasonable responses.