Dismissals related to health and safety 


Under sections 44 and 100 of ERA 96, a person must not suffer a detriment, be dismissed or made redundant wholly or mainly because of:


• carrying out functions as a safety rep;


• raising health and safety concerns with the employer;


• participating in safety consultations with the employer;


• leaving or refusing to return to a place of work in circumstances of “serious or imminent danger” , or taking other appropriate steps to protect themselves or others in these circumstances; or 


• carrying out safety duties designated by the employer.


The dismissal is automatically unfair and no service is required. Past examples include a finding of unfair dismissal for refusing to drive defective vehicles, and a young female employee who refused to take rubbish alone at night to a deserted dump. Steps to protect members of the public are also covered. For example, in Masiak v City Restaurants (UK) Limited [1999] IRLR 780, a chef dismissed for refusing to cook food he considered unfit for human consumption was protected. 


“Circumstances of danger” has a wide meaning and includes danger of violence from other employees (Harvest Press Limited v McCaffrey [1999] IRLR 778). However, in Balfour Kilpatrick v Acheson [2003] IRLR 683, staff who walked out over being made to wear damp clothing were unable to show an imminent risk. 


As long as the employee forms a genuine view of a risk that they reasonably regard as serious and imminent, the fact that the employer disagrees with the seriousness of the risk or the appropriateness of the steps taken is irrelevant: