Apprentice barber dismissed for soliciting clients: whistleblowing claim fails
An apprentice barber who was summarily dismissed for soliciting clients and setting up a rival business failed to prove his dismissal was due to whistleblowing. The tribunal awarded £1,431 for unauthorised wage deductions.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #breach-of-restrictive-covenants
- #whistleblowing
- #furlough-fraud-allegation
- #unauthorised-deductions
- #annual-leave-pay
- #small-employer
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as an apprentice barber from 30 May 2018 until his summary dismissal on 24 July 2020.
- The claimant sent text messages to clients of the respondent offering cheaper haircuts and set up a competing business within 100 metres of the salon.
- The claimant made a protected disclosure to HMRC on 12 July 2020 alleging furlough fraud, but the respondent was unaware of this at the time of dismissal.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct after a disciplinary hearing where the claimant showed no remorse and argued the restrictive covenants were unenforceable.
- The tribunal found the claimant's whistleblowing claims failed because the dismissal was solely due to his misconduct, not the protected disclosure.
- The claimant succeeded in claims for unauthorised deductions from wages for unpaid wages in March 2020 and unpaid annual leave, totalling £1,431.30.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began employment as an apprentice barber at Strongman Moustache.
-
Increased responsibilities
The claimant took on some day-to-day management functions but was not formally promoted to manager.
-
First alleged protected disclosure
The claimant accused the respondent of fraud for proposing to backdate furlough claims, leading to a heated exchange.
-
Apology and continued work
The claimant apologised via WhatsApp and continued working with the respondent during lockdown.
-
First client solicitation
The claimant sent an SMS to clients offering his personal number and complaining about price increases.
-
HMRC report
The claimant submitted an online report to HMRC alleging furlough fraud by the respondent.
-
Second client solicitation
The claimant sent another SMS offering home haircuts at lower prices, which was reported to the respondent by a client.
-
Suspension and disciplinary invite
The respondent suspended the claimant and invited him to a disciplinary hearing for breach of restrictive covenants.
-
Summary dismissal
After a disciplinary hearing where the claimant was aggressive and unrepentant, the respondent summarily dismissed him for gross misconduct.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented claims for unfair dismissal, whistleblowing detriment, wrongful dismissal, and unauthorised deductions.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal was automatically unfair because he had made a protected disclosure to HMRC about alleged furlough fraud, or whether it was a fair dismissal for misconduct in breaching restrictive covenants by soliciting clients and setting up a competing business.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claims for unfair dismissal (both ordinary and automatic) and unlawful detriment. The claimant was not dismissed because of any protected disclosure; the employer was unaware of the HMRC report at the time. The dismissal was for gross misconduct: the claimant sent text messages to clients offering cheaper haircuts and set up a rival business within 100 metres, in breach of restrictive covenants.
The claimant succeeded in claims for unauthorised deductions from wages:
- Unpaid wages for 1-21 March 2020 (paid at 80% instead of full rate): £[amount]
- Unpaid annual leave on termination: £[amount]
- Total award: £1,431.30
Lessons & takeaways
- Whistleblowing protection only applies if the employer knows about the disclosure at the time of dismissal; a secret report to HMRC will not protect you.
- Restrictive covenants in employment contracts can be enforced if they are reasonable; breaching them by soliciting clients can justify summary dismissal.
- Small employers may have less formal procedures, but they must still follow a fair process; however, aggressive and unrepentant behaviour at a disciplinary hearing can undermine a claim of unfairness.
- Employers must pay full wages for hours worked, even during furlough; paying only 80% for worked hours is an unauthorised deduction.
- Keep records of all communications and ensure any deductions from pay are clearly agreed in advance.
This case shows how a breakdown in trust can lead to summary dismissal, even when the employee has raised serious concerns about their employer. The claimant, an apprentice barber who later took on management duties, became disillusioned with the business. He reported his employer to HMRC for alleged furlough fraud, but kept that report secret. Meanwhile, he began soliciting clients via text message, offering cheaper haircuts from his home, and set up a competing business nearby.
When the employer discovered the client solicitation, they suspended the claimant and held a disciplinary hearing. At the hearing, the claimant showed no remorse and argued the restrictive covenants in his contract were unenforceable. The employer dismissed him for gross misconduct. The tribunal found that the employer had a genuine belief in the misconduct, carried out a reasonable investigation, and dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses for a small business. The claimant's whistleblowing claim failed because the employer did not know about the HMRC report at the time of dismissal.
What the employer could have done differently
While the dismissal was fair, the employer made errors in paying wages. The claimant was paid only 80% of his wages for a period when he worked full hours, and his holiday pay on termination was miscalculated. The tribunal ordered repayment of £1,431.30. Employers should ensure that any deductions from wages are authorised by contract or by law, and that holiday pay is correctly calculated on termination.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case highlights that whistleblowing protection is not a 'get out of jail free' card. If an employee commits serious misconduct, they can still be fairly dismissed even if they have made a protected disclosure, provided the employer was unaware of it. It also shows that restrictive covenants can be enforced in a small business context, and that an employee's aggressive behaviour at a disciplinary hearing can damage their credibility. For employees, the lesson is clear: if you have concerns, raise them properly, but do not breach your contract by soliciting clients or setting up a competing business while still employed.
Similar cases
Whistleblowing and wage claim dismissed: out of time and not pursued
A former manager's claims for whistleblowing detriment and unauthorised wage deductions were struck out after she presented them late and failed to attend the preliminary hearing.
Whistleblowing tractor operative awarded £94,838 after being sent home and dismissed
A tractor operative who reported unsafe equipment to the Environment Agency and his employer was subjected to detriment and dismissed. The tribunal awarded him £94,838.50 for injury to feelings, unpaid wages, and the employer's failure to provide written particulars.
Barber dismissed via WhatsApp for sick absence: unfair dismissal and wage deductions
A barber with three years' service was unfairly dismissed via WhatsApp after calling in sick. The tribunal also found the employer made unauthorised deductions from wages and failed to provide a written contract, awarding £3,435.59.
Dismissed via Zoom and told he was a contractor: tribunal finds employee status
A Business Development Director who was summarily dismissed on a Zoom call and told he was a contractor has won nearly £293,000 after a tribunal ruled he was an employee and unfairly dismissed.