Delivery driver dismissed via WhatsApp P45 after 20 years: unfair dismissal with ACAS uplift
A delivery driver with over 20 years' service was unfairly dismissed when his employer sent a P45 via WhatsApp without any disciplinary process. The tribunal awarded £5,786.78 after deductions for contributory conduct and a Polkey reduction.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #delivery-driver
- #covid-19-lockdown
- #acas-code-uplift
- #polkey-deduction
- #contributory-conduct
- #furlough-pay
Key facts
- The claimant worked as a delivery driver for the respondent florist for over 20 years.
- On 25 February 2020, the claimant had a road traffic accident in a van owned by the respondent.
- The claimant did not work after 14 March 2020 and failed to adequately communicate with the respondent.
- On 5 May 2020, the respondent sent the claimant a P45, which the tribunal found to be a dismissal.
- The respondent did not follow any disciplinary process before dismissing the claimant.
- The claimant's father passed away on 25 May 2020.
Timeline
-
Claimant started employment
Claimant says employment commenced as a delivery driver; respondent says start date is 1 October 2000.
-
TUPE transfer
Claimant's employment transferred from Goldrock Properties to MG Seven Ltd.
-
First accident
Claimant had an accident leading to high insurance quote; claimant offered to subsidise insurance and allegedly said he would resign if further issues.
-
Second accident
Claimant had a road traffic accident in the respondent's van at 19:01 on Craven Park, London NW10.
-
Van sent for repair
Damaged van went into repair and remained out of use for the rest of claimant's employment.
-
Last day worked
Claimant worked his last day; respondent hired a van for him to work temporarily.
-
Telephone conversation
Claimant and respondent spoke by telephone; claimant was asked to call back but did not.
-
Furlough letter sent
Respondent sent a furlough letter via WhatsApp, effective 16 March to 6 April 2020.
-
P45 sent
Respondent sent a P45 via WhatsApp, giving leaving date as 8 April 2020.
-
Claimant's letter
Claimant sent a letter querying dismissal and stating he was off work due to ill health from the accident.
-
Claimant's father died
Claimant's elderly father passed away.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented his claim to the employment tribunal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was dismissed or resigned by conduct, and if dismissed, whether the dismissal was fair and what compensation was due.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed when the respondent sent a P45 via WhatsApp on 5 May 2020. The dismissal was procedurally unfair because the respondent did not follow any disciplinary process or give the claimant an opportunity to explain his absence.
Compensation was reduced:
- Basic award: £4,152.29, reduced by 50% for contributory conduct (£2,076.14)
- Compensatory award: £1,458.49, reduced by 50% for contributory conduct and 25% Polkey reduction (net £546.93)
- ACAS uplift of 10% on compensatory award
- Total award: £5,786.78
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must follow a fair disciplinary process before dismissing an employee, even during periods of poor communication.
- Sending a P45 via WhatsApp without prior warning or investigation is likely to be an unfair dismissal.
- Long-serving employees (over 20 years) are entitled to a higher basic award, but this can be reduced if they contributed to their own dismissal.
- Failure to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice can result in a 10% uplift in compensation.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights the risks of dismissing an employee without any formal process, especially one with over 20 years' service. The delivery driver had been off work after a road traffic accident and communication broke down. Instead of investigating or following a disciplinary procedure, the employer sent a P45 via WhatsApp. The tribunal found this was a dismissal and that it was unfair.
What the losing side could have done differently
The employer could have contacted the driver to discuss his absence, given him a chance to explain, and followed a proper capability or conduct procedure. Even if the driver was at fault for not communicating, a fair process would have reduced the risk of an unfair dismissal finding and limited compensation.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case shows that tribunals will scrutinise the employer's conduct, not just the employee's. The ACAS uplift (10%) was applied because the employer ignored the ACAS Code. However, the driver's own failure to communicate led to significant deductions (50% contributory fault and 25% Polkey reduction). The total award of £5,786.78 reflects a balance between the employer's procedural failure and the employee's contributory conduct.
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.
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.
Care worker unfairly dismissed by employer-mother after incident with son
A care worker with four years' service was unfairly dismissed after an incident with his client. The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair and awarded £2,975 after deductions.
Care worker dismissed for mistreating dementia resident: unfair process but no compensation
A care home worker was unfairly dismissed after procedural flaws, but the tribunal found her guilty of the alleged misconduct and reduced compensation to zero.