Apprentice carpenter dismissed for taking unauthorised holiday: no investigation or hearing
An apprentice carpenter was unfairly dismissed after taking a week's holiday despite his employer's refusal. The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair and awarded £918.13, including unlawful deduction claims.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was summarily dismissed after taking unauthorised holiday despite the employer's refusal.
- The employer did not carry out any investigation or hold a disciplinary meeting before dismissing the claimant.
- The claimant had agreed to £50 monthly deductions from wages for tools provided by the employer.
- The employer failed to pay the claimant for 5 days of accrued but untaken holiday on dismissal.
- The claimant made no real effort to find alternative employment after dismissal.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started work as an apprentice carpenter at £5 per hour, 40 hours per week.
-
Alleged final written warning
Employer claims a final written warning was issued for failing to lock a tool container, but the tribunal found it was not sent.
-
Written contract and particulars
Claimant became Level 3 apprentice at £10 per hour; written contract and particulars of employment provided.
-
Holiday request via father
Claimant's father texted employer requesting holiday from 18-24 April.
-
Phone call between father and employer
Employer refused holiday, stating it was too short notice due to a new project.
-
Claimant's personal holiday request
Claimant asked employer for holiday in person; employer refused.
-
Summary dismissal
Claimant went on holiday despite refusal; employer dismissed him by text at 7:35am.
-
Dismissal letter and appeal right
Employer sent letter confirming dismissal and offering appeal within 5 days.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed on grounds of procedural unfairness.
-
Appeal dismissed
Employer dismissed appeal without a meeting, stating no new evidence.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the summary dismissal for taking unauthorised holiday was procedurally fair, and whether the employer made unlawful deductions from wages and failed to pay accrued holiday pay.
The outcome
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair due to a complete lack of procedure.
Key reasons:
- No investigation or disciplinary hearing before dismissal.
- The employer's appeal process was also flawed (no meeting).
- However, the tribunal found the claimant would have been dismissed anyway with a fair process (75% Polkey reduction) and contributed to his own dismissal (75% contributory fault).
Compensation breakdown:
- Basic award: £100.00
- Compensatory award: £236.50 (after Polkey and contributory deductions)
- Unlawful deduction for wages: £181.63
- Unpaid holiday pay: £400.00
- Total: £918.13
Lessons & takeaways
- Even for serious misconduct like taking unauthorised holiday, employers must carry out a basic investigation and hold a disciplinary hearing before dismissing.
- Small employers are not exempt from fair procedures — a lack of process will almost always make a dismissal unfair.
- If you are dismissed without any process, you may have a strong unfair dismissal claim even if your conduct was poor.
- Keep records of holiday requests and refusals — they are key evidence in any dispute about unauthorised absence.
- Employers must pay accrued but untaken holiday on dismissal, regardless of the reason for dismissal.
A dismissal without any process
This case shows what happens when an employer reacts to misconduct without following any procedure. The apprentice carpenter had asked for holiday, been refused, but went anyway. The employer's response was to dismiss him by text at 7:35am on the day he was due to return — with no investigation, no meeting, and no chance to explain.
The tribunal was clear: this was unfair. Even if the misconduct was serious, the employer needed to look into the circumstances and give the employee a hearing. The fact that the employer was a small construction company did not change that basic requirement.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer could have held a quick disciplinary meeting, listened to the apprentice's side, and then decided on a sanction. A fair process might still have led to dismissal, but it would have been lawful. Instead, the employer's rush to judgment meant the dismissal was automatically unfair.
Why the result matters
This case is a reminder that procedural fairness is not optional. Even where an employee's conduct is poor — and the tribunal found the apprentice contributed 75% to his own dismissal — the employer must still follow basic steps. The compensation was low because of the apprentice's contribution and the likelihood he would have been dismissed anyway, but the principle is clear: no process means unfair dismissal.
The case also highlights that employees can bring multiple claims together. Here, the apprentice also won claims for unlawful deduction of wages and unpaid holiday pay, showing that a dismissal dispute can uncover other employer failings.
Similar cases
Dismissed without a disciplinary hearing: procedural unfairness costs employer £9,500
A former employee with two years' service was unfairly dismissed after being suspended and then sacked without any disciplinary hearing. The Cambridge tribunal awarded £9,546.81 in compensation.
Analyst dismissed for comments during cultural awareness training: procedural flaws led to unfair dismissal
A Grade 5 analyst at the National Crime Agency was unfairly dismissed after making allegedly racist comments during a training event. The tribunal found the process was flawed by an initial promise of informal resolution and a 16-month delay, but reduced compensation due to her own conduct.
PCV driver dismissed after failing breath tests: flawed appeal but dismissal largely upheld
A PCV driver who failed three breath alcohol tests was unfairly dismissed due to a flawed appeal, but the tribunal found she would have been dismissed anyway and reduced compensation by 75% for contributory conduct.
Car valet dismissed for abusive language: procedural unfairness but no compensation awarded
A car valet with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after using foul language towards a colleague, but the tribunal awarded no compensation because his conduct wholly caused his dismissal.