Security guard dismissed after alleged theft: no protected disclosure
A security guard with only weeks of service was dismissed after being accused of taking items without permission. The tribunal rejected his claims of protected disclosure detriment and notice pay, but awarded £627 for missing written particulars.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #security-guard
- #short-service
- #alleged-theft
- #inadequate-investigation
- #acas-code-uplift
Key facts
- The claimant was engaged as a security guard from mid-July 2021.
- The claimant was not provided with a written statement of employment particulars.
- On 18 August 2021, the claimant was alleged to have taken items belonging to a landlord without permission.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant on 19 August 2021 based on the allegation.
- The claimant made oral disclosures about a co-worker's lack of authorisation and alleged theft, but the tribunal found no qualifying protected disclosure.
- The respondent was ordered to pay £627.24 for failure to provide written particulars.
Timeline
-
Informal interview
Mr Summan met the claimant at KFC for an informal interview.
-
Engagement started
The claimant started working as a security guard at Gulston Gardens Student Accommodation in Coventry.
-
First alleged disclosure
The claimant spoke to Mr Summan about a co-worker not being authorised to work, but the tribunal could not determine what was said.
-
Second alleged disclosure
The claimant spoke to Mr Ali about a co-worker, but the tribunal found no qualifying disclosure.
-
Started at Hilston Park
The claimant began working at Hilston Park in Wales.
-
Incident at Hilston Park
The claimant was alleged to have put landlord's items in his car without permission. He left before Mr Summan arrived.
-
Dismissal communicated
Mr Summan told the claimant he was dismissed due to the alleged theft. The claimant sent a video and text message threatening to go to the police.
-
Returned items
The claimant returned the items to Hilston Park around 1am and later visited the police.
-
Final confirmation of dismissal
The claimant called Mr Summan from a withheld number and was told he was no longer engaged.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant made a protected disclosure about a co-worker's lack of authorisation and whether he suffered detriment as a result. It also considered his claim for notice pay and the respondent's failure to provide written employment particulars.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims except the claim for failure to provide a written statement of particulars.
- The claimant's complaint of detriment on grounds of making a protected disclosure was not well-founded and was dismissed.
- The claim for notice pay was also dismissed.
- The respondent was ordered to pay £627.24 for failing to provide written particulars (two weeks' gross pay).
Lessons & takeaways
- Short-service employees (under two years) generally cannot claim unfair dismissal, but may still bring claims for protected disclosure detriment or breach of contract.
- To succeed in a protected disclosure claim, the worker must show they made a qualifying disclosure that they reasonably believed was in the public interest.
- Employers must provide a written statement of employment particulars from day one; failure to do so can result in a penalty of two to four weeks' pay.
- Oral disclosures about a co-worker's authorisation may not qualify as protected disclosures if the worker cannot show what was said and why it was in the public interest.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates the difficulties faced by workers with very short service who try to bring whistleblowing claims. The claimant, a security guard, had been engaged for only about five weeks when he was dismissed after an incident where he was alleged to have taken items belonging to a landlord without permission. He argued that he had made protected disclosures about a co-worker not being authorised to work, but the tribunal found that the conversations were too vague to amount to qualifying disclosures.
What the losing side could have done differently
The respondent could have avoided the £627 penalty by simply providing a written statement of employment particulars at the start of the engagement. The tribunal noted that the respondent had failed to do so, and there were no exceptional circumstances to justify a lower award. For the claimant, the outcome might have been different if he had kept a clear record of his disclosures, including what he said and why he believed it was in the public interest.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that whistleblowing protections are not automatic. The worker must show that they made a qualifying disclosure – one that tends to show a breach of a legal obligation, danger to health and safety, or other specified matters – and that they reasonably believed it was in the public interest. Short-service workers should also be aware that they cannot claim ordinary unfair dismissal, but may still have other claims such as unlawful deduction from wages or failure to provide particulars.
Similar cases
Dismissed over defamation claim he didn't make: a foregone conclusion
A maintenance technician was unfairly dismissed after being accused of defaming his employer. The tribunal found the investigation was minimal, the outcome predetermined, and the appeal conducted by the managing director's brother-in-law. He was awarded £10,896.94.
20-year employee dismissed for performance without proper process: unfair dismissal
A payroll administrator with 20 years' service was unfairly dismissed after a flawed capability process that lacked warnings, investigation, and an appeal. The tribunal awarded £28,333, including a 25% uplift for failing to follow the ACAS Code.
Care assistant unfairly dismissed after flawed investigation into resident incidents
A care assistant with two years' service was unfairly dismissed for alleged gross misconduct after a flawed investigation. The tribunal awarded £27,316, including a 25% ACAS uplift for the employer's failure to follow the ACAS Code.
29-year career ended over flawed sexual harassment investigation: dismissal unfair
A country director with 29 years' service was unfairly dismissed after a flawed investigation into a sexual harassment allegation. The tribunal ordered his re-engagement.