Apprentice ground worker wrongfully dismissed but damages limited by redundancy
An apprentice ground worker with 9 months' service was wrongfully dismissed for misconduct, but the tribunal limited his damages to 10 days' pay because he would have been made redundant within weeks.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #common-law-apprenticeship
- #breach-of-contract
- #redundancy
- #covid-19
- #misconduct-dismissal
- #apprentice-ground-worker
Key facts
- The Claimant was engaged as an apprentice ground worker from 9 September 2019 under a contract that was not a statutory apprenticeship agreement.
- The Claimant left work early on 7 July 2020 without informing his employer and did not report his absence thereafter.
- The Respondent dismissed the Claimant by letter dated 15 July 2020 for misconduct without following the proper disciplinary process.
- The Tribunal found the Claimant was a common law apprentice and was wrongfully dismissed, but would have been made redundant by 31 July 2020 due to the closure of the aviation business.
- The Claimant was awarded 10 days' pay (£427.82) as damages for breach of contract.
Timeline
-
Apprenticeship started
The Claimant began his apprenticeship as a ground worker with the Respondent, due to finish on 9 September 2021.
-
Covid-19 lockdown
The UK entered lockdown; the aviation industry was severely affected, and the Respondent closed all Heathrow sites until June 2020.
-
Collective consultation began
The Respondent started collective consultation with all employees in the aviation business, including the Claimant, due to redundancy.
-
Claimant left work early
The Claimant left site at approximately 1pm feeling unwell, without informing the Respondent. He was contacted by text at 4pm and responded the next day.
-
Dismissal for misconduct
The Respondent sent a letter dismissing the Claimant for misconduct, without following the proper disciplinary process.
-
ACAS early conciliation started
The Claimant contacted ACAS to begin early conciliation.
-
ACAS certificate issued
The ACAS early conciliation certificate was issued.
-
Claim presented
The Claimant presented his claim form for wrongful dismissal.
-
Preliminary hearing
Employment Judge R Wood granted the Claimant's application to amend the ET1 to argue the contract was a common law apprenticeship.
-
Final hearing (day 1)
The substantive hearing began before Employment Judge Young.
-
Final hearing (day 3) and oral judgment
The Tribunal gave oral judgment finding the Claimant was a common law apprentice, wrongfully dismissed, but would have been made redundant by 31 July 2020.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was a common law apprentice (which gives greater protection against dismissal) or a statutory apprentice, and whether his dismissal was wrongful. It also considered what would have happened had he not been dismissed.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was a common law apprentice, not a statutory one, because his contract did not meet the requirements of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009. As a common law apprentice, he could only be dismissed in very limited circumstances, and the misconduct dismissal without proper process was wrongful.
However, the tribunal also found that the claimant would have been made redundant by 31 July 2020 due to the closure of the aviation business as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, his damages were limited to the period between his actual dismissal on 15 July and the date he would have been made redundant.
Compensation:
- 10 days' pay: £427.82
Lessons & takeaways
- Apprenticeship contracts that don't meet statutory requirements may be treated as common law apprenticeships, which offer stronger protection against dismissal.
- Even if a dismissal is wrongful, damages can be limited if the employee would have been dismissed lawfully shortly afterwards for another reason.
- Employers must follow proper disciplinary procedures when dismissing apprentices, especially common law apprentices who can only be dismissed in exceptional circumstances.
A short-lived apprenticeship cut short
The claimant started his apprenticeship as a ground worker in September 2019, expecting it to last two years. But just ten months in, he left work early feeling unwell and failed to report his absence. His employer, Morgan Sindall Construction Infrastructure Ltd, dismissed him for misconduct without following a proper disciplinary process.
The legal status of the apprenticeship
The tribunal had to first decide what kind of apprentice the claimant was. His contract referred to the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, but didn't meet all its requirements. This meant he was a common law apprentice, not a statutory one. Common law apprentices have greater job security — they can only be dismissed in very limited circumstances, such as gross misconduct or the business closing down.
What the employer could have done differently
Morgan Sindall could have avoided the wrongful dismissal finding by following a proper disciplinary process before dismissing the claimant. Even if they believed his absence was misconduct, they should have investigated and given him a chance to explain. However, the tribunal accepted that the business was already in collective consultation for redundancy due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the claimant's role would have been made redundant by 31 July 2020.
Why the result matters
This case shows that even when a dismissal is wrongful, compensation may be limited if the employee would have lost their job anyway for a fair reason. The claimant received only £427.82 — 10 days' pay — because that was the period between his actual dismissal and the date he would have been made redundant. For employees, it highlights the importance of understanding the type of apprenticeship contract they have, as common law apprentices have stronger protections but may still face redundancy.
Similar cases
Self-isolation pay owed but whistleblowing unfair dismissal claim fails
A personal assistant who was required to stay home after her son developed a cough was owed £110.79 in pay, but her whistleblowing unfair dismissal claim was rejected because the redundancy decision came before the protected disclosure.
Surveyor loses whistleblowing claim but wins notice pay after redundancy
A surveyor who argued he was dismissed for raising health and safety concerns about excessive driving has lost his automatic unfair dismissal claim, but won £1,500 for unpaid notice.
Bar staff wins constructive dismissal claim after being ignored for months
A bar worker with 5 years' service was constructively dismissed after his employer failed to offer him any shifts following furlough. The tribunal found a fundamental breach of contract and trust.
Sales manager dismissed in flawed redundancy process wins £4,105 after 80% Polkey cut
A 66-year-old sales manager with 7 years' service was unfairly dismissed after a flawed redundancy consultation during the pandemic, but the tribunal reduced his compensation by 80% because he would likely have been dismissed anyway.