Mr Gupta has been employed for just under three months by a pharmaceutical company. He raises issues with HR regarding working hours in excess of 48 hours and that he has witnessed general bad health and safety practices. He later informs a colleague of his report to HR who then tells his manager. Mr Gupta is subjected to systematic bullying in the form of taunts, marginalisation, and unfounded criticism. When he reaches the three-month mark, he is called into a probationary meeting lasting around 10 minutes and told that, due to unsatisfactory performance, he has not passed his probationary period and is being dismissed with immediate effect. The company do not substantiate this claim or give him any evidence. Mr Gupta feels his performance could not be criticised and that ending his employment based on his performance is unjustified. Mr Gupta attempts to resolve matters amicably with his employer but fails. He lodges a claim to the tribunal for unfair dismissal.
He wins. The tribunal find the real reason for Mr Gupta’s dismissal was that he had reported health and safety concerns to HR and these constituted protected disclosures or whistleblowing.
He loses. The tribunal find that the reason for the dismissal was for reasons connected to his performance even though his employer did not substantiate it. They criticise the way his employer carried out the dismissal but, as he had not been working there for two years, he could not claim unfair dismissal. As the dismissal was unconnected to the whistleblowing (which does not require two years of service) the claim must fail.