Michael Hibbert v Upwards Care Solutions Ltd — 2023

Michael Hibbert was employed by Upwards Care Solutions as a Maintenance Officer from 16 May 2022 until 30 September 2022, so he had less than two years' service. The tribunal recorded that he raised concerns in July 2022 about the quality of a self-employed joiner's work on an architrave and fire door frame, and later, on 23 September 2022, he again raised concerns about fire doors at a supervision meeting. The respondent accepted that the 23 September disclosure fell within section 100(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996, but denied that it was the reason for dismissal.

The tribunal found that concerns about Hibbert's conduct and capability had already been raised at supervision meetings before the dismissal. It accepted that the respondent became concerned about matters including his punctuality, relationship with an administrative officer, training on fire doors, and a safeguarding issue involving a screwdriver given to a looked-after young person. It also found that, before the 23 September meeting, the respondent had already been contemplating dismissal and had arranged for HR attendance and taken advice from Peninsula.

On the evidence, the tribunal found that the health and safety point about the fire doors was raised only briefly at the end of the meeting and did not cause the dismissal. It found that the respondent dismissed Hibbert because it had formed a subjective view that he was generally unsuitable for the role because of its assessment of his capability and conduct. The tribunal also relied on the fact that similar health and safety concerns raised in July 2022 had not led to any adverse action. It therefore held that the protected disclosure was not the principal reason for dismissal and that the automatic unfair dismissal claim failed.

Because Hibbert had less than two years' service, the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to consider whether the respondent's views were reasonably held or whether a fair process was followed. It nevertheless noted that the claimant's work appeared to be of a high standard in the bundle and that he had acted conscientiously, but those comments did not alter the outcome. The claim was dismissed and no monetary remedy was awarded.