Charity shop manager dismissed days after querying pay: automatic unfair dismissal
A charity shop manager with just four months' service was automatically unfairly dismissed after querying her pay. The tribunal awarded £17,956 in compensation.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #short-service
- #protected-disclosures
- #right-to-be-accompanied
- #unauthorised-deductions
- #extension-of-time
- #ill-health
Key facts
- The claimant was employed from 21 June 2021 to 26 October 2021 as a charity shop manager.
- She was paid for 30 hours per week but worked at least 35 hours per week from 25 June 2021.
- She made several protected disclosures about theft, health and safety issues, and underpayment.
- She was dismissed at a meeting on 19 October 2021, purportedly for unsatisfactory probation, but the real reason was her complaint about pay.
- The claimant suffered from severe trauma and ill health after dismissal, which prevented her from bringing a claim in time.
- The tribunal found the dismissal automatically unfair under section 104(1)(b) ERA 1996.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began work as a charity shop manager for Restore (Cumbria).
-
Underpayment began
Claimant started working at least 35 hours per week but was paid for only 30 hours.
-
Payroll form incident
Claimant completed a payroll form stating £9 per hour; manager Rachel Nutley expressed irritation.
-
First disclosure (theft)
Claimant reported volunteers stealing and threatening her (Disclosure 1).
-
Second disclosure (rats)
Claimant reported rats in the shop toilet (Disclosure 2).
-
Third disclosure (mould/electrics)
Claimant reported mould and water in electrics (Disclosure 3); manager texted that hours would increase to 37.5 per week.
-
Fourth disclosure (threats)
Claimant reported being threatened while working (Disclosure 4).
-
Fifth disclosure (water in electrics)
Claimant reported water running into electrics (Disclosure 5).
-
Sixth disclosure (faulty lights)
Claimant reported faulty lights (Disclosure 6).
-
Pay query email
Claimant emailed Karen Parr and HR querying whether she had been paid for 37.5 hours.
-
Invitation to informal meeting
Trustee Eleanor Hancock invited claimant to an informal investigation meeting on 19 October.
-
Dismissal meeting
Claimant was dismissed with one week's notice for 'unsatisfactory time on probation'; she was traumatised.
-
Effective date of termination
Claimant's employment ended after notice period.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed against dismissal, relying on therapist's advice.
-
Appeal rejected
Respondent rejected appeal; claimant did not receive the letter.
-
ACAS early conciliation started
Claimant contacted ACAS after chasing appeal outcome.
-
ACAS certificate issued
ACAS early conciliation certificate received.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented her tribunal claim.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was dismissed for asserting her statutory right to be paid correctly, making the dismissal automatically unfair under section 104(1)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It also considered whether time limits should be extended because ill health prevented her from bringing the claim on time.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claim of automatic unfair dismissal, along with claims for unauthorised deductions, failure to provide a written statement, and infringement of the right to be accompanied. Claims for whistleblowing detriment and health and safety dismissal were dismissed.
Compensation awarded:
- Total: £17,956.00
- The award includes compensation for the unfair dismissal, unauthorised deductions of £1,113.76, and other losses.
Lessons & takeaways
- Asserting your right to correct pay is a protected act – dismissing someone for this can be automatically unfair, even with short service.
- If ill health prevents you from bringing a claim in time, the tribunal may extend the deadline if it was not reasonably practicable to present it earlier.
- Employers should ensure they pay staff for all hours worked and address pay queries properly, rather than dismissing the employee.
- Short-service employees still have protection against dismissal for asserting statutory rights – the usual two-year qualifying period does not apply.
A pay query that led to dismissal
The claimant, a charity shop manager, had only been working for Restore (Cumbria) for four months when she was dismissed. She had been paid for 30 hours a week but regularly worked at least 35 hours. When she emailed HR to query her pay, she was invited to an 'informal investigation meeting' and dismissed on the spot for 'unsatisfactory time on probation'. The tribunal found the real reason was her complaint about pay.
What the employer could have done differently
Restore (Cumbria) could have avoided this outcome by taking the pay query seriously and investigating it properly. Instead, they used a probation review as a pretext to dismiss an employee who had raised legitimate concerns. The tribunal noted that the dismissal was not about capability but about the claimant asserting her right to be paid correctly.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that the right to complain about unauthorised deductions is a statutory right protected from the first day of employment. Employees with short service can still bring an automatic unfair dismissal claim if they are dismissed for asserting that right. It also shows that tribunals will extend time limits if a claimant's ill health makes it not reasonably practicable to present a claim on time.
Similar cases
Porter with two months' service loses whistleblowing constructive dismissal claim
A porter who resigned after two months, claiming constructive dismissal for reporting drug use and safety concerns, lost his case. The tribunal found the employer had taken reasonable steps and there was no fundamental breach of contract.
Late ET3 response accepted: tribunal considers inexperience and ill health
A tribunal granted an extension for a late response from an employer with no legal experience who was ill, accepting the ET3 one working day late due to a communication error by her daughter.
Café worker automatically unfairly dismissed for asserting right to written contract
A café worker with only six months' service was automatically unfairly dismissed after asking for a written contract. The tribunal awarded over £2,000 including injury to feelings for age discrimination.
Dismissed without a meeting or appeal: a conduct case with big reductions
A former employee of Fairview Grocers Limited was unfairly dismissed without any meeting or right of appeal, but his own conduct led to a 60% cut in compensation. He was awarded £3,752.89 in total.