Unfair dismissal but no compensation: 100% contributory conduct and Polkey reduction
A Quality Assurance Technician with 12 years' service was unfairly dismissed after a breakdown in working relationships, but the tribunal found he contributed 100% to his dismissal and would have been dismissed anyway, resulting in no compensation.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #long-term-behavioural-issues
- #performance-improvement-plan
- #covert-recordings
- #some-other-substantial-reason
- #polkey-100-percent
- #contributory-conduct-100-percent
Key facts
- The claimant was employed from 1 April 2009 to 16 December 2020 as a Quality Assurance Technician.
- The claimant's performance ratings were consistently low due to behavioural issues, leading to minimal pay increases.
- The claimant made covert recordings of conversations with managers, which were admitted as evidence.
- The respondent invested significant time and resources in trying to resolve the claimant's concerns, including mediation and a development plan.
- The claimant's relationship with his line managers, particularly Amera Muthana and Dean Peplow, irretrievably broke down.
- The claimant was dismissed without prior warning of the meeting's purpose, rendering the dismissal procedurally unfair.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for Nestle UK Ltd at Hayes factory.
-
Transfer to Tutbury
Claimant transferred from Hayes to Tutbury factory due to Hayes closure; salary reduced from £25,018.56 to £20,000 but shift allowance and overtime increased total pay.
-
First low performance rating
Claimant received a 1:1 performance rating, resulting in no pay increase for 2013.
-
First protected act
Claimant raised a grievance referring to the Equality Act.
-
Exceptional pay increase
Claimant received a 14% pay increase (backdated to October) due to improved performance, raising basic salary to £22,890.
-
Incident with Andy Allcock
Claimant reported an incident where Andy Allcock spoke to him in a way he found intimidating; manager Amera Muthana addressed it with Allcock's line manager.
-
Performance rating 1:1 for 2018
Claimant received a 1:1 rating for 2018 performance, leading to no pay increase in 2019.
-
Mediation meeting
A meeting with senior managers, HR, and union representatives was held to resolve issues; claimant refused to move forward.
-
First ET claim presented
Claimant presented a race discrimination claim to the Employment Tribunal.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed with immediate effect due to irretrievable breakdown in working relationships; no prior notice of dismissal meeting.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed due to a breakdown in working relationships, and if so, what compensation should be awarded given the claimant's conduct and the likelihood of dismissal under a fair procedure.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed because Nestle UK Ltd did not give him prior warning of the meeting where he was dismissed, making the procedure unfair. However, the tribunal also found that the claimant's own conduct—including long-standing behavioural issues and covert recordings of managers—contributed 100% to his dismissal. Additionally, there was a 100% chance that he would have been dismissed even if a fair procedure had been followed. As a result, no basic award or compensatory award was made.
- Basic award: £0 (100% contributory conduct)
- Compensatory award: £0 (100% Polkey reduction)
- Total damages: £0
Lessons & takeaways
- Even if a dismissal is procedurally unfair, you may receive no compensation if the tribunal finds you contributed 100% to your dismissal or that you would have been dismissed anyway.
- Covert recordings of managers can damage your credibility and be treated as misconduct, potentially reducing any compensation.
- Long-term behavioural issues, even if not formally warned about, can be used by a tribunal to justify a 100% contributory finding.
- If you are dismissed without notice of the meeting's purpose, the dismissal is likely to be procedurally unfair, but that does not guarantee a financial award.
A procedural error that made no difference to the outcome
This case shows that even when an employer gets the process wrong, a claimant may still walk away with nothing. The Quality Assurance Technician, who had worked for Nestle UK Ltd for 12 years, was called to a meeting and dismissed on the spot without being told in advance that dismissal was on the table. That was procedurally unfair. But the tribunal found that the breakdown in working relationships was entirely down to the claimant's own behaviour, and that Nestle would have dismissed him anyway if they had followed a fair process.
The claimant had a long history of low performance ratings due to behavioural issues, and had made covert recordings of conversations with managers. Nestle had invested significant time and resources in trying to resolve his concerns, including mediation and a development plan, but the relationship with his line managers had irretrievably broken down.
What Nestle could have done differently
Nestle's main mistake was failing to give the claimant any warning that the meeting might result in dismissal. A simple letter or verbal warning beforehand would have made the procedure fair. However, because the tribunal concluded that the outcome would have been the same regardless, Nestle escaped any compensation liability.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that unfair dismissal does not automatically mean a payout. Tribunals can reduce compensation to zero if they find that the employee's own conduct caused the dismissal, or that the employer would have dismissed them fairly anyway. Claimants who have engaged in misconduct or have a history of difficult behaviour should be aware that even a procedural win may not lead to a financial award.
Similar cases
Dismissed after visa sponsorship became impossible: Home Office rule change was 'some other substantial reason'
A tribunal has ruled that Fintru Limited fairly dismissed an associate whose skilled worker visa could not be renewed after the Home Office raised salary thresholds. The employer explored alternatives and followed a reasonable process.
Control room team leader dismissed over hug and anti-Semitism allegations: unfair but compensation slashed
A tribunal found that MTR Elizabeth Line unfairly dismissed a control room team leader of 11 years over a hug and alleged anti-Semitic comments, but reduced compensation by 75% due to his own conduct.
Dismissed by father after family breakdown: WhatsApp message found to be unfair dismissal
A father who told his daughter 'I don't have a job for you, in fact I hope I never see u again' in a WhatsApp message was found to have unfairly dismissed her. The tribunal awarded £13,977.58.
Senior auditor dismissed after taking time off to care for ill father: automatic unfair dismissal claim rejected
A tribunal has ruled that a senior internal auditor with one year's service was not automatically unfairly dismissed for taking time off to care for his seriously ill father. The claim was dismissed.