Whistleblowing during probation: dismissal for suitability upheld
A Head of People Services with only four months' service was dismissed for lack of suitability during her probation. The tribunal found no link between her protected disclosures and the dismissal, rejecting claims of automatic unfair dismissal and detriment.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as Head of People Services from 14 April 2020 to 14 August 2020.
- The claimant made two protected disclosures on 28 April 2020 and 9 June 2020.
- The claimant's probation was extended on 17 June 2020 due to performance concerns.
- Multiple colleagues complained about the claimant's management style and behaviour.
- The claimant was dismissed on 14 August 2020 for lack of suitability during probation.
- The tribunal found no causal link between the protected disclosures and the dismissal or detriments.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started as Head of People Services.
-
First protected disclosure
Claimant emailed about missing exemption form for trauma service expenditure.
-
Second protected disclosure
Claimant emailed about failure to publish equality data for 2018-2019.
-
Probationary review meeting
Claimant's probation extended by 3 months due to performance concerns.
-
Probation extension confirmed
Letter confirming extension to 11 October 2020.
-
Gold DEI meeting
Claimant's poor preparation led to colleague complaints.
-
Invitation to s4(8) capability hearing
Claimant invited to hearing to consider suitability.
-
Grievance raised
Claimant raised grievance alleging detriment due to protected disclosures.
-
Grievance and capability hearing
Hearing before DCC Kennedy; grievance and suitability considered.
-
Dismissal
Claimant dismissed on 3 months' notice for lack of suitability.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal before Chief Constable Cooke and panel; dismissed.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed or subjected to detriment because she made protected disclosures about missing exemption forms and failure to publish equality data, or whether the real reason was her lack of suitability during probation.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed both claims. It found that the respondent had genuine concerns about the claimant's performance and behaviour, supported by multiple colleague complaints. The decision to extend her probation and later dismiss her was based on these suitability issues, not on the protected disclosures.
- No compensation was awarded as the claims were dismissed in full.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees in a probationary period can still bring whistleblowing claims, but the reason for dismissal must be closely examined — if genuine performance or suitability concerns exist, the claim may fail.
- Making a protected disclosure does not give immunity from dismissal if there are separate, well-documented reasons for ending employment.
- Employers should ensure that decisions about probation are based on objective evidence and fair process, even when the employee has raised protected disclosures.
- Colleague complaints and performance issues can be strong evidence that dismissal was not linked to whistleblowing, especially when documented before any disclosure.
This case shows that even when an employee makes protected disclosures early in their employment, a dismissal during probation can still be fair if there are genuine suitability concerns. The claimant, a Head of People Services with only four months' service, raised two disclosures about missing exemption forms and failure to publish equality data. However, the tribunal found that the respondent's decision to extend her probation and later dismiss her was driven by performance issues and complaints from colleagues about her management style.
What the employer did right
The respondent had a clear process: they extended the probationary period after a review meeting, documented performance concerns, and invited the claimant to a capability hearing. Multiple colleagues had complained about her behaviour, and the tribunal accepted that these concerns were genuine and not a pretext for retaliation. The decision-maker, DCC Kennedy, considered both the grievance and the capability issues at the same hearing, and the appeal was heard by the Chief Constable.
Why the whistleblowing claim failed
The tribunal found no causal link between the protected disclosures and any detriment or dismissal. The timeline showed that performance concerns arose before some of the disclosures, and the decision to extend probation was based on objective feedback. The claimant's argument that she was 'micro-managed' or 'bullied' was not supported by the evidence — the tribunal found that her line manager's actions were reasonable management responses to performance issues.
What this means for similar claims
This case reinforces that whistleblowing protection is not absolute. Employees must show that the protected disclosure was a material factor in the decision to dismiss or treat them unfavourably. Where an employer can demonstrate a separate, legitimate reason — such as suitability during probation — the claim is likely to fail. For employees, it highlights the importance of ensuring that any performance concerns are addressed early and that there is clear evidence linking any detriment to the disclosure.
Similar cases
Support Worker removed from WhatsApp rota after reporting safety concerns: whistleblowing detriment claim succeeds
A zero-hours support worker who reported a machete on site and was later assaulted by a resident was removed from the work rota after raising concerns. The tribunal found she suffered 11 detriments because of her protected disclosures and awarded £27,677.28.
Trader dismissed for alleged leak after raising mismarking concerns: unfair dismissal upheld
A trader with 7 years' service was unfairly dismissed by EDF Trading Limited after a flawed investigation into an alleged leak of confidential information. The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair but rejected his whistleblowing claim.
Whistleblowing care home employee wins liability but loses remedy after failing to attend hearing
A care home employee who was unfairly dismissed for raising food hygiene and safeguarding concerns won her liability case, but the remedy claim was dismissed when she did not attend the hearing.
Whistleblowing and conduct dismissal: NHS trust's decision upheld
A Health Care Support Worker with four years' service was fairly dismissed for failing to treat a service user with dignity, the tribunal ruled, rejecting claims of whistleblowing detriment and race discrimination.