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.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #health-safety
- #public-interest-disclosure
- #unfair-dismissal
- #understaffing
- #ppe
- #unsanitary-conditions
- #polkey-reduction
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Mobile Operative from March 2015 until his summary dismissal on 25 February 2020.
- The claimant repeatedly raised concerns about understaffing, inadequate PPE, and unsanitary conditions at the Waterloo hub.
- On 14 November 2019, a senior health and safety manager briefed staff to push only one bicycle at a time.
- The claimant was dismissed after a disciplinary process that found he had instructed colleagues to push one bike, contrary to local management instructions.
- The tribunal found that the principal reason for dismissal was the claimant's protected disclosures, making it automatically unfair under s.103A ERA.
- A 50% Polkey reduction was applied to losses arising 8 months or more after dismissal, due to the likelihood of future misconduct.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
The claimant started working as a Mobile Operative at Serco's London Cycle Hire Scheme.
-
Email complaint about unsanitary conditions
The claimant emailed Sean Manley about public urination and smoking at Waterloo hub.
-
Oral disclosure about inadequate PPE
The claimant told Annabel Castledine that PPE was inadequate, particularly waterproofing.
-
Attempt to show health and safety issues
The claimant tried to show Ms Castledine the issues at Waterloo hub; she told him to be careful how he chose his words.
-
Meeting with Sam Jones
The claimant met with Sam Jones and complained about understaffing and PPE.
-
Email about unsanitary conditions
The claimant emailed the operations address about urination and smoking at Waterloo.
-
Email to CEO
The claimant emailed CEO David Soames about understaffing and health and safety risks.
-
Health and safety briefing
David Chivers and Andrea Leiter attended Waterloo hub; Chivers reportedly said only one bike should be pushed at a time.
-
Final written warning
The claimant received a final written warning for failing to follow code of conduct and conflict avoidance training.
-
Dispute over number of bikes
The claimant insisted on pushing one bike at a time, contrary to local manager Remi Jackson's instruction.
-
Suspension
The claimant was suspended pending investigation into allegations of failing to follow instructions, insubordination, and bullying.
-
Summary dismissal
The claimant was summarily dismissed with pay in lieu of notice.
-
Appeal lodged
The claimant appealed against his dismissal.
-
Appeal outcome
Alan Elliot dismissed the appeal, sending the claimant a copy of a witness statement for the first time.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed because the principal reason for his dismissal was that he had made protected disclosures about health and safety concerns, and whether he had suffered detriments for those disclosures.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claimant's complaint of automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA, finding that his protected disclosures about understaffing, inadequate PPE, and unsanitary conditions were the principal reason for his dismissal. Other complaints (including ordinary unfair dismissal and detriment claims) were dismissed.
A 50% Polkey reduction was applied to losses arising 8 months or more after dismissal, reflecting the likelihood that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed later due to misconduct. Remedy is to be determined at a later hearing.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you raise genuine health and safety concerns with your employer, those are likely to be protected disclosures — and dismissing you because of them is automatically unfair.
- Even if you win a whistleblowing claim, the tribunal may reduce compensation if it finds you would have been dismissed anyway for other reasons (a Polkey reduction).
- Keep a record of your disclosures — emails, meeting notes, and witness details can be crucial evidence in tribunal.
- Being a litigant in person is possible, but having legal representation can help navigate complex issues like the difference between automatic and ordinary unfair dismissal.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights the risks employers face when they dismiss an employee who has repeatedly raised health and safety concerns. The claimant, a mobile operative with 4.5 years' service, had complained for months about understaffing, inadequate PPE (especially waterproofs), and unsanitary conditions at Serco's Waterloo hub. He emailed managers, spoke to health and safety representatives, and even wrote to the CEO. When he later followed a senior health and safety manager's instruction to push only one bike at a time — contrary to local management's wishes — he was suspended and then summarily dismissed for insubordination.
The tribunal found that the real reason for the dismissal was not the misconduct but the claimant's protected disclosures. The sequence of events — the timing of the disciplinary process, the way the employer handled the allegations — pointed to a desire to remove a persistent whistleblower.
What Serco could have done differently
Serco could have taken the claimant's concerns seriously from the start. The tribunal noted that the working conditions at Waterloo were genuinely difficult: narrow walkways, antisocial behaviour, and understaffing. Instead of investigating the health and safety issues, Serco focused on the claimant's conduct in following a safety instruction. A fair employer would have separated the two issues: address the safety concerns through a proper risk assessment, and deal with any conduct issues independently. By conflating them, Serco exposed itself to a finding of automatic unfair dismissal.
Why the result matters
This case is a reminder that whistleblowing protections are strong. Even where an employee has some culpability — the tribunal applied a 50% Polkey reduction for future misconduct — the fact that a protected disclosure was the principal reason for dismissal makes the dismissal automatically unfair. For employees, it shows the importance of raising concerns in writing and keeping a record. For employers, it underscores that dismissing a whistleblower, even under the guise of misconduct, is likely to backfire in tribunal.
Similar cases
Whistleblowing claim fails: redundancy was the real reason for dismissal
An out-of-hours call centre supervisor with four months' service was dismissed for redundancy during the pandemic. The tribunal found that, although she had made one protected disclosure, it was not the reason she lost her job.
Cleaner with diabetes dismissed for poor performance and attendance: claims fail
A cleaner with two years' service who was dismissed for poor performance and attendance lost her claims of unfair dismissal, whistleblowing, disability and sex discrimination. The tribunal found the employer acted reasonably.
Dismissed without a meeting or appeal: a conduct case with big reductions
A former employee of Fairview Grocers Limited was unfairly dismissed without any meeting or right of appeal, but his own conduct led to a 60% cut in compensation. He was awarded £3,752.89 in total.
Lead Software Consultant's whistleblowing claims dismissed as out of time
An employment tribunal struck out a Lead Software Consultant's whistleblowing detriment and automatically unfair dismissal claims, leaving only an ordinary unfair dismissal claim to proceed. The tribunal also refused the employer's bid to strike out the remaining claim due to the claimant's conduct.