Welding safety concerns raised but dismissal was over contract refusal
A telesales operative who also performed welding claimed he was automatically unfairly dismissed for raising health and safety concerns. The tribunal found the real reason was his refusal to sign a training costs contract.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #health-safety
- #unfair-dismissal
- #welding-training
- #contract-dispute
- #computer-monitoring
Key facts
- The claimant was employed from 10 August 2020 to 5 October 2020 (or 17 October 2020) as a telesales operative who also performed welding.
- The claimant raised health and safety concerns about welding conditions on 5 October 2020.
- The claimant refused to sign a contract containing a two-year penalty clause for welding training costs.
- The claimant was upset about the respondent monitoring his computer usage.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant because he would not sign the contract, not because of health and safety concerns.
Timeline
-
Claimant starts work
Claimant began employment with Aramis Rugby Ltd in telesales, later also performing welding.
-
Meeting and departure
Claimant raised health and safety concerns and objected to contract terms. He left work after an agreement to take a break to consider his position.
-
P45 and final payslip sent
Respondent sent P45 and final payslip, though claimant had not unequivocally resigned.
-
Claimant contacts respondent
Claimant sent WhatsApp message asking to return and discuss moving forward.
-
Respondent declines re-engagement
Mrs Mahajan replied that due to pandemic, no work available. Claimant then raised health and safety issues and alleged unfair dismissal.
-
Claim form presented
Claimant presented claim for automatic unfair dismissal to the employment tribunal.
-
Hearing and judgment
Employment Judge Smail heard the case and dismissed the claim, finding the reason for dismissal was the claimant's refusal to sign the contract, not health and safety.
-
Costs judgment
Claimant ordered to pay respondent £820 preparation time costs.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the reason (or principal reason) for the claimant's dismissal was that he raised health and safety concerns about welding conditions. If so, the dismissal would be automatically unfair under section 100(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim of automatic unfair dismissal.
The key reason was that the tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that the dismissal was because the claimant refused to sign the contract containing a two-year penalty clause for welding training costs. The health and safety concerns raised on the same day were not the principal reason.
The tribunal found the claimant had not been dismissed for raising health and safety concerns, so the claim failed. No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you raise health and safety concerns, make sure you can show they were the real reason for any subsequent dismissal — other factors like contract disputes can undermine your case.
- Keep clear records of what was said in meetings, especially if you raise concerns and are later dismissed; witness evidence may not be enough.
- Employers should ensure that any contract changes are handled separately from health and safety discussions to avoid confusion over the reason for dismissal.
- A short period of employment (here, less than two months) can make it harder to prove the employer's motive, as there is less history to rely on.
A dispute over welding training costs, not safety
This case shows how a dismissal that appears to follow a health and safety complaint can be found to have a different, lawful reason. The claimant, a telesales operative who also performed welding, raised concerns about welding conditions — including noise, gloves, and fumes — in a meeting on 5 October 2020. But the same meeting also involved a dispute over a proposed contract clause that would require him to repay two months' salary if he left within two years of receiving welding training.
The tribunal accepted the employer's evidence that the claimant's refusal to sign the contract was the real reason for ending the employment. The health and safety concerns, while raised, were not the principal reason for dismissal. The claimant had only been employed for about two months, and the tribunal found the employer's version of events more credible.
What the employer did right
The respondent, Aramis Rugby Ltd, was able to show a clear chain of events: the claimant objected to the contract, left the meeting to 'cool off', and then received a P45. When he later asked to return, the employer said no work was available due to the pandemic. The tribunal accepted that the employer's decision was based on the contract dispute, not the safety concerns.
What this means for similar claims
For employees, this case is a reminder that raising health and safety concerns does not automatically protect you from dismissal if there are other, unrelated reasons for the employer's decision. The timing of events is crucial, but the tribunal will look at the whole picture. For employers, it highlights the importance of documenting the real reason for dismissal and ensuring that contract negotiations do not become entangled with health and safety discussions.
Similar cases
Cleaning operative's unfair dismissal claims dismissed as out of time
A cleaning operative who filed two unfair dismissal claims after the three-month deadline has had both claims dismissed. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for him to have filed in time.
Dismissed after raising health and safety concerns: a partial win for the employee
A former employee of Ian Henery Solicitors Ltd was initially found to be unfairly dismissed for raising health and safety concerns, but the unfair dismissal judgment was later revoked. The tribunal confirmed wrongful dismissal and awarded £3,336 in total.
COVID test grievance claim struck out as out of time and lacking merit
A former employee who claimed he was victimised for leaving work to take a COVID-19 test had his case struck out for being out of time and having no reasonable prospect of success. He was also ordered to pay £50,186.50 in costs.
Mobile operative dismissed for raising health and safety concerns wins unfair dismissal claim
A mobile operative who was dismissed after repeatedly raising concerns about understaffing, inadequate PPE, and unsanitary conditions at Serco's London Cycle Hire Scheme has won his claim for automatic unfair dismissal. The tribunal found the principal reason for his dismissal was his protected disclosures.