Dismissed after raising health and safety concerns about a low worktable: whistleblowing claim succeeds
A printing assistant with only two months' service was automatically unfairly dismissed after emailing his employer about back pain caused by a low worktable. The tribunal awarded £23,192.40.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a printing assistant from 3 March 2020 to 11 May 2020.
- The claimant raised concerns about back pain caused by a low worktable in emails on 19 April, 29 April, and 11 May 2020.
- The respondent did not respond to the claimant's emails or offer solutions.
- On 11 May 2020, the respondent emailed the claimant stating 'it is better to end the job now', which the tribunal found to be a dismissal.
- The tribunal found the reason for dismissal was the claimant's protected disclosure about health and safety.
- The respondent failed to provide written particulars of employment.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began work as a printing assistant (graphic design) for the respondent.
-
Started packing role
Claimant began dispatching and packing duties due to lockdown, and first experienced back pain.
-
First email about back pain
Claimant sent a detailed email to the respondent describing back pain and suggesting the worktable was too low.
-
Second email about back pain
Claimant sent another email stating his back was 'burning in pain' and proposed having Wednesdays off.
-
Conversation with Ms Wang
Claimant spoke with Ms Wang about his concerns; she told him to look for another job.
-
GP advice and dismissal
Claimant forwarded GP advice about safe working. Respondent emailed dismissing him hours later.
-
Sought legal advice
Claimant saw a solicitor for legal advice.
-
Contacted ACAS
Claimant contacted ACAS early conciliation.
-
Claim presented
Claimant filed the ET1 claim form.
-
Hearing day 1
Substantive hearing held via CVP.
-
Deliberations
Tribunal deliberated in chambers.
-
Judgment
Judgment issued finding automatic unfair dismissal, notice pay, and failure to provide written particulars.
-
Remedy judgment
Remedy hearing; total award of £23,192.40 including basic and compensatory awards.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was dismissed, and if so, whether the reason was his protected disclosure about health and safety concerns (the low worktable causing back pain). It also considered claims for notice pay and written particulars of employment.
The outcome
The tribunal unanimously found that the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed because he made a protected disclosure about health and safety.
Key reasons:
- The claimant's emails about back pain and the low worktable amounted to a qualifying disclosure in the public interest.
- The respondent's email saying 'it is better to end the job now' was a dismissal, not a mutual agreement.
- The principal reason for dismissal was the protected disclosure.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £738.40
- Compensatory award: £22,454.00
- Total: £23,192.40
Lessons & takeaways
- Short service does not prevent a claim for automatic unfair dismissal if the reason is a protected disclosure.
- Employers should take health and safety concerns seriously and respond to them, rather than dismissing the employee who raised them.
- An email stating 'it is better to end the job now' can be a dismissal, even if the employer claims it was mutual agreement.
- Employees with less than two years' service can still claim automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing, so employers cannot rely on the usual service qualifying period.
A short-lived role, a serious concern
The claimant worked as a printing assistant for just over two months. During that time, he repeatedly emailed his employer about severe back pain caused by a worktable that was too low for him. He described his back as 'burning in pain' and asked for adjustments. The employer did not reply to any of his emails. Instead, on the same day he forwarded GP advice about safe working, the employer emailed him saying 'it is better to end the job now'.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal found that the claimant's emails were protected disclosures – he reasonably believed he was raising a health and safety risk in the public interest. The employer's failure to respond and the timing of the dismissal showed that the principal reason for dismissal was the disclosure itself. This made the dismissal automatically unfair, regardless of the claimant's short service.
The tribunal also awarded notice pay because the claimant was dismissed without notice and without pay in lieu, and compensation for the employer's failure to provide written particulars of employment.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer could have simply responded to the claimant's emails, acknowledged his concerns, and explored reasonable adjustments such as a different table or different tasks. Instead, by ignoring the concerns and dismissing him, they breached whistleblowing law. Even if the employer genuinely believed the claimant was not a good fit, dismissing him on the same day he raised a health and safety issue was a clear mistake.
Why this case matters
This case is a reminder that whistleblowing protection applies from day one of employment. Employees with less than two years' service cannot normally claim unfair dismissal, but they can if the reason is a protected disclosure. Employers must take health and safety concerns seriously and ensure that any decision to end employment is not linked to the disclosure. The substantial award of over £23,000 reflects the seriousness of the breach.
Similar cases
Bartender misclassified as self-employed wins holiday pay and notice
A bartender who was required to register as self-employed and paid by invoice has been awarded £2,492 after the tribunal found he was a worker entitled to holiday pay and notice.
Unfair dismissal and unpaid notice: a procedural failure that cost £8,000
A former employee was unfairly dismissed and denied proper notice pay and annual leave. The tribunal awarded £8,000 after finding the employer failed to follow a fair process.
Branch manager dismissed for using 'dump codes' to bypass asset tracking system
An employment tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a branch manager who used 'dump codes' to circumvent the company's asset tracking system, rejecting his claims of unfair dismissal and whistleblowing.
Unfair dismissal: pudding company penalised for ignoring ACAS code and failing to provide written terms
A former employee of The Bowness Pudding Company Limited was unfairly dismissed and awarded £11,934.76 after the company failed to follow the ACAS Code of Practice and did not provide a written statement of employment terms.