Unfair dismissal example cases

Mr Smith was dismissed after he could not provide a urine sample during a workplace drug and alcohol test.

The employer treated this as misconduct and said he had failed to comply with testing requirements.

The tribunal later found he had not deliberately refused or tried to avoid the test.

Medical evidence showed he had paruresis, sometimes called shy bladder syndrome, which explained why he could not provide the sample at the time.

The tribunal had already decided the dismissal was unfair.

When the case moved to remedy, it looked at whether Mr Smith should return to his old job.

Network Rail argued that reinstatement was not practical because of trust and confidence concerns, its internal drugs and alcohol policy, and the Sentinel card system.

The tribunal rejected those arguments and found that reinstatement was practicable.

The tribunal ordered that Mr Smith be reinstated to his role as Team Leader Track Inspections at Havant Depot.

It also dealt with his financial losses up to the reinstatement date.

Before reinstatement took effect, the employer told the tribunal it would not comply with the reinstatement order and would instead pay compensation for non-compliance.

That led to a basic award, a compensatory award, and an additional award for failure to comply with the reinstatement order. A later costs judgment also awarded £2,825 plus VAT, which is separate from the main compensation total.

This example shows that a reinstatement order is a real remedy, not just a symbolic one.

If an employer refuses to comply, the tribunal can make an additional award on top of ordinary unfair dismissal compensation.

Thomas Blakey co-founded Wayfairer Travel and remained employed until 3 July 2024.

The employer said his employment had ended by mutual agreement on 1 April 2024 as part of wider discussions about a share buy-back and his exit from the business.

The tribunal rejected that. It found that ending employment on 1 April 2024 had only ever been a proposal, not an agreement, and that the claimant continued working after that date.

The dismissal letter of 3 July 2024 was therefore a real dismissal, not just confirmation of an earlier departure.

The claimant had not been paid from April 2024 onwards. His solicitors wrote to the employer in June 2024 asserting his right to be paid.

The tribunal found that those assertions were made in good faith and that they were the principal reason for the dismissal.

That made the dismissal automatically unfair under section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The tribunal also found the dismissal was unfair in the ordinary sense because the employer’s explanation, that it mistakenly believed employment had already ended, was not a potentially fair reason under section 98.

At remedy stage, the tribunal awarded £17,763.90 for unpaid wages, pension and child care contributions.

It also awarded a £7,700 basic award and a £50,369.16 compensatory award, producing a total of £75,833.06.

The tribunal made no reduction for contributory conduct.

It also made no Polkey reduction, because it found there was zero chance that a fair process would have resulted in a lawful dismissal for the real reason relied on by the employer.

This example shows that asserting a statutory right, including the right to wages lawfully due, can found an automatic unfair dismissal claim.

It also shows that an employer cannot rely on a mistaken belief that employment had already ended as a potentially fair reason for dismissal.

Ms Barwinska worked as a Senior Sales/Design Consultant from 3 September 2017 until she resigned with effect from 31 December 2023.

She brought claims for constructive unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and unpaid pay/commission. The tribunal later clarified the disability claim as a failure to make reasonable adjustments claim.

The tribunal found that her contract stated normal hours of 9am–5pm and that the employer could not unilaterally vary those normal hours to 10am–6pm.

The claimant had notified the employer of several health conditions, including pelvic congestion syndrome, leg varicosities, a metal coil in her right ventricle, and hypothyroidism, and she said the later hours would significantly hinder her ability to manage those conditions.

She tried the new hours briefly, refused to sign a variation document, and repeatedly made clear that she wanted to keep working to her signed contract.

She raised the issue again on 6 November 2023 and again a week later, asking to move back to her 9am–5pm pattern because of her health, but the employer did not respond to either email.

After taking advice from Acas, she resigned on 30 November 2023 giving one month’s notice.

The tribunal said there was already an offensive working environment and an unequal distribution of work in the London office, and that by the beginning of November 2023 there had been a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.

It found the claimant resigned in response to the employer’s failure to engage with her concerns and communicate with her about the hours issue.

On the disability issue, the tribunal found that requiring her to work 10am–6pm put her at a substantial disadvantage compared with a non-disabled employee because of her need for rest and the benefits of an earlier start.

It held that asking to return to 9am–5pm was a reasonable adjustment and that the employer had offered no evidence to show otherwise.

At the remedy hearing, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £5,787 and a grossed-up compensatory award of £46,442.74 for unfair dismissal.

It said the compensatory award was based on loss up to the end of December 2024, finding that the claimant had mitigated her loss as far as reasonably possible but was likely to find suitable work in early 2025.

The tribunal also held that the statutory cap did not reduce the award because 52 weeks’ gross pay in her case was £50,379.41, which was above the compensatory figure awarded.

For the reasonable-adjustments claim, the tribunal awarded £6,500 for injury to feelings plus £544.22 interest.

It said the employer’s failure to respond to her request to move back to her contractual hours caused considerable stress, worry, lack of sleep and anxiety, but it also avoided double recovery because some of the same factual background had already been compensated through the unfair dismissal award.

The employer also had to pay £286.49 for arrears of pay and unpaid commission owing on termination.

This example shows that constructive dismissal is not limited to one dramatic event.

A refusal to engage with an employee’s concerns, combined with an attempted unilateral change to contractual hours and a failure to deal properly with a disability-related request, can be enough to destroy trust and confidence and justify resignation.

It also shows how a constructive dismissal case can sit alongside a separate discrimination remedy.