Agency mental health worker's whistleblowing claim dismissed: safety concerns not a protected disclosure
An Approved Mental Health Professional who withdrew from work citing serious danger lost his whistleblowing and health and safety detriment claims. The tribunal found his concerns did not amount to a protected disclosure or a reasonable belief of imminent danger.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #agency-worker
- #approved-mental-health-professional
- #risk-assessment
- #triage-model
- #near-miss
- #placement-termination
Key facts
- The claimant was an agency AMHP placed with North Yorkshire Council via Randstad and Matrix.
- On 11 October 2022, the claimant emailed his line manager stating he did not feel safe and was withdrawing from work under s44 ERA.
- The respondent terminated the claimant's placement on the same day after receiving his email.
- The claimant had previously raised concerns about risk assessments for MHA assessments with his manager.
- The tribunal found the claimant did not have a reasonable belief of serious and imminent danger.
- The tribunal found the claimant's disclosure email did not amount to a qualifying protected disclosure.
Timeline
-
Placement start date
Claimant's agency placement with North Yorkshire Council was scheduled to start, but delayed due to administrative issues.
-
Placement actually started
Claimant began working after completing online training on 8-9 September.
-
Patient A assessment
Claimant assessed Patient A, who was known to carry knives. Police attended. Claimant later described this as a 'near miss'.
-
Warrant approved
Claimant received approval to act as an AMHP independently for 5 years.
-
First Patient B visit
Claimant attended Patient B's home with another AMHP but patient was not home.
-
Second Patient B visit
Claimant assessed Patient B at home, which was dirty and smoky. Claimant had no PPE.
-
Patients C and X assessments
Claimant assessed Patient C in hospital, then later assessed Patient X. He felt pressured to leave Patient C.
-
Claimant emailed safety concerns and placement terminated
Claimant emailed manager at 9:23am withdrawing from work due to safety concerns. Manager instructed termination of placement at 9:57am.
-
Claimant emailed director
Claimant emailed Mr Webb at 12:33pm and 2:30pm detailing his concerns.
-
Final hearing started
Four-day hearing before Employment Judge Deeley, Mr Elwen and Mr Webb.
-
Judgment issued
Tribunal dismissed all claims.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was subjected to detriment because he made a protected disclosure (whistleblowing) or because he refused to return to work in circumstances of serious and imminent danger (health and safety).
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims against North Yorkshire Council.
The key reasons were:
- The claimant's email withdrawing from work did not contain a 'qualifying disclosure' as defined by whistleblowing law.
- The claimant did not have a reasonable belief that there was serious and imminent danger, so the health and safety detriment claim failed.
- The respondent terminated the placement promptly after receiving the email, but the tribunal found no causal link to a protected act.
No compensation was awarded as all claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- To qualify as a protected disclosure, the information disclosed must be about a specific legal wrongdoing, not just a general safety concern.
- A belief of serious and imminent danger must be objectively reasonable based on the circumstances, not just a subjective feeling.
- Agency workers should be aware that their worker status may affect which legal protections apply, especially for health and safety detriments.
- Employers can act swiftly to end a placement if an employee withdraws from work, provided the reason is not a protected disclosure or health and safety concern.
What this case shows in practice
The claimant was an Approved Mental Health Professional (AMHP) placed with North Yorkshire Council through an agency. After a series of challenging assessments, he emailed his manager saying he did not feel safe and was withdrawing from work under section 44 of the Employment Rights Act. The council terminated his placement the same day.
He claimed this was a detriment because he had made a protected disclosure (whistleblowing) and because he had refused to work in circumstances of serious and imminent danger. The tribunal rejected both claims.
What the losing side could have done differently
The tribunal found that the claimant's email did not contain a 'qualifying disclosure' – it did not disclose information about a specific legal wrongdoing. Instead, it was a withdrawal from work based on his personal safety concerns. For a health and safety claim to succeed, the employee must have a reasonable belief of serious and imminent danger. The tribunal noted that the claimant had not raised specific concerns about the Patient A assessment being a 'near miss' at the time, and the later assessments did not present an objectively serious and imminent risk.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case highlights the high bar for whistleblowing and health and safety detriment claims. A general expression of feeling unsafe is unlikely to be a protected disclosure. Workers must ensure that any disclosure clearly identifies a legal wrongdoing, and that any refusal to work due to danger is based on objectively reasonable grounds. The case also confirms that agency workers can have their placement terminated swiftly if they withdraw from work, as long as the employer's action is not linked to a protected act.
Similar cases
Agency worker's multiple claims struck out: no jurisdiction and out of time
An agency worker who worked for less than two years had his unfair dismissal, unpaid wages, and breach of contract claims dismissed by the tribunal, along with human exploitation allegations which the tribunal had no power to hear.
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.
Production operative dismissed during long-term sick leave: unfair dismissal claim fails on service
A production operative who was dismissed while on sick leave for plantar fasciitis and depression lost her unfair dismissal claim because she had less than two years' service. All disability discrimination claims were also dismissed.
Pregnant chef dismissed after requesting time off for pregnancy-related illness
A chef was automatically unfairly dismissed when her employer fired her by message after she requested time off for pregnancy-related bleeding. The tribunal awarded £18,479 for unfair dismissal, discrimination, and unauthorised deductions.