Dismissed for sending a critical email: automatic unfairness claim fails
An executive assistant with only three months' service was dismissed after accidentally sending an email calling her boss a 'very difficult boss'. The tribunal found the dismissal was for conduct, not for asserting statutory rights, and rejected her claim for automatically unfair dismissal.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #short-service
- #probationary-dismissal
- #written-particulars
- #payslips
- #untruthful-email
Key facts
- Claimant started employment on 28 March 2022 as Executive Assistant.
- Claimant asked for a written contract and payslips on multiple occasions.
- Claimant was provided with a statement of main terms on 11 May 2022 and a payslip on 2 June 2022.
- On 9 June 2022, claimant accidentally sent an email to her manager calling him a 'very difficult boss' and making an untrue statement.
- Claimant was dismissed on 14 June 2022 after a probationary meeting, citing breach of trust and unprofessional behaviour.
- The tribunal found the reason for dismissal was the email, not the assertion of statutory rights.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began work as Executive Assistant for Goma Limited T/A Caia.
-
Asked for contract
Claimant asked Mrs Vir for an update on her contract of employment.
-
Signed statement of terms
Claimant signed a statement of main terms of employment, backdated to 28 March 2022.
-
Asked for payslips
Claimant asked Mr Vir for payslips.
-
Received payslip
Claimant was provided with a payslip dated 31 May 2022.
-
Sent critical email
Claimant accidentally sent an email to Mr Vir calling him a 'very difficult boss' and making an untrue statement about a house manager.
-
Invited to probationary meeting
Claimant received a letter inviting her to a probationary meeting regarding breach of trust and unprofessional behaviour.
-
Dismissed
After a probationary meeting, claimant was dismissed with immediate effect and received pay in lieu of notice.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the principal reason for dismissal was the claimant's assertion of her statutory right to a written statement of particulars and payslips (which would make the dismissal automatically unfair) or her conduct in sending a critical and untruthful email about her manager.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim of automatically unfair dismissal.
The key reason was that the email, not the statutory requests, was the real reason for dismissal. The claimant had asked for a contract and payslips, but had received them before the email was sent. The email, sent accidentally to her manager, called him a 'very difficult boss' and contained an untrue statement about a house manager. The probationary meeting and dismissal followed swiftly.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Short-service employees have limited protection: automatically unfair dismissal claims require proving the protected act was the reason for dismissal.
- Keep a clear record of any requests for statutory rights (like contracts or payslips) to show a link if you are later dismissed.
- An employer can fairly dismiss for conduct even if you have previously raised statutory issues, as long as the conduct is the real reason.
- Accidentally sending a critical email can be a serious disciplinary matter, especially if it contains untruths.
A short service and a costly email
This case shows how difficult it can be to prove automatically unfair dismissal when you have only a few months' service. The claimant, an executive assistant, started work in March 2022 and was dismissed in June 2022. She had asked for a written contract and payslips, which she eventually received. But the trigger for her dismissal was an email she accidentally sent to her manager, calling him a 'very difficult boss' and making an untrue statement about a colleague.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had asserted her statutory rights to a contract and payslips. However, the key question was whether those assertions were the reason for her dismissal. The tribunal found they were not. By the time of the email, the claimant had already received a statement of terms and a payslip. The email, sent on 9 June 2022, led to a probationary meeting on 13 June and dismissal on 14 June. The tribunal concluded the dismissal was for conduct, not for asserting statutory rights.
What could have been done differently
For the employer, the case was straightforward: they had a probationary process and dismissed for a clear conduct issue. For the claimant, the result might have been different if the statutory requests had been more closely linked to the dismissal – for example, if she had been dismissed shortly after making the requests, or if the employer had shown hostility to those requests. As it was, the timing and content of the email broke that link.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that automatically unfair dismissal claims require a direct causal link between the protected act and the dismissal. Short-service employees are particularly vulnerable because they have no right to claim ordinary unfair dismissal. If you are in a similar position, it is vital to gather evidence that your employer's stated reason for dismissal is a pretext for punishing you for asserting your rights.
Similar cases
HR Business Partner dismissed after one month for whistleblowing: £74,540 awarded
An HR Business Partner who raised concerns about a flawed redundancy process was dismissed after just one month. The tribunal awarded £74,540 after striking out the employer's response.
Legal secretary awarded £29,000 after assault and protected disclosures
A trainee legal secretary who was assaulted by her employer and made protected disclosures has won claims of unfair dismissal, sex discrimination, harassment and victimisation. She was awarded £28,986.85.
Probationary dismissal of electrical engineer: discrimination claims rejected
An electrical engineer dismissed during his probationary period for poor performance and a safety incident failed to prove race, age or disability discrimination. The tribunal upheld the employer's decision.
Dismissed without notice after TUPE transfer: £34,000 award for unfair dismissal and unpaid wages
A former employee was unfairly dismissed by the new employer that took over the business, and awarded £34,485 for unfair dismissal, breach of contract, and unauthorised deductions from wages.