Tyre fitter sacked after brake warnings wins nearly £19,200 at tribunal

A tyre fitter who repeatedly warned his boss about unsafe vehicle work was dismissed, denied pay and left fearing retaliation from colleagues. The messages sent back to him became central evidence against his employer.

An employment tribunal found Kevin Fair was sacked by Colins Tyres for making protected disclosures and awarded him £19,189.83 across several parts of his claim. The judgment shows why the response to a workplace complaint can matter as much as the complaint itself.

Mr Fair had raised specific concerns: brakes not properly serviced, service warning lights removed without the work being done, oil left unchanged and holes cut into an engine undertray. The judge accepted that he reasonably believed customers could be endangered and that raising the issues was in the public interest.

Mr Fair began working for Colins Tyres in June 2024. The tribunal found he raised concerns from early in his employment, but his boss, Richard Evans, dismissed them. Eventually Mr Fair said he would tell the customer directly.

WhatsApp exchanges in November 2025 then left his employment status unclear: messages suggesting dismissal were followed by an apology and another message saying his job had ended. A phone call on 19 November settled the issue when he was told he would not be getting his job back.

A later message expressly connected withholding his wages to what the employer described as threats. Mr Fair understood that to mean his intention to contact the customer. Another message threatened to pass his disclosures to colleagues who could take action against him; he feared retribution, potentially including assault.

The tribunal found the disclosures were the sole or principal reason for dismissal, making it automatically unfair. It also found unlawful detriment through the withheld pay and threats. Contemporaneous messages supported Mr Fair’s account of the connection.

Colins Tyres did not attend the hearing or defend the claim. The judge found Mr Fair credible and reliable. The tribunal also used his evidence to establish a 19 November dismissal date, rather than the later date on his P45, which the employer had provided no evidence to support.

The stated awards were £12,605.13 for dismissal and detriments, £2,984.70 for unauthorised wage deductions including holiday pay, £720 for breach of contract over notice and £2,880 for failing to provide written employment particulars. Together those awards total £19,189.83; an award does not establish that payment has been made.

In its judgment sent on 19 August 2026, the tribunal also deferred considering a separate financial penalty payable to the government for 14 days, allowing employer representations. The supplied material does not establish whether such a penalty was subsequently imposed.

The useful lesson is in the detail of the records. Messages helped establish both why Mr Fair was dismissed and when it happened. Someone raising similar concerns could consider keeping a dated account of what they reported, who received it and how the employer responded, alongside the original messages.

Timing also helped connect the loss of pay to the disclosures. Recording when a payment was missed and preserving any explanation given for it may help make that sequence clear; here, the employer’s own message supplied an explicit link.

The missing written terms created another problem: the tribunal had to identify the employer from payslips and tax documents. Checking the employer named on written terms and retaining those records is a practical consideration illustrated by this case. The outcome turned on Mr Fair’s evidence and circumstances; it does not guarantee the same result in another dispute.