Early years practitioner dismissed after raising pay concerns: automatically unfair dismissal
An early years practitioner with 8 years' service was automatically unfairly dismissed after raising concerns about underpayment of SSP and holiday pay. The tribunal found the real reason for her dismissal was her assertion of statutory rights.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #pay-dispute
- #ssp
- #holiday-pay
- #furlough
- #grievance
- #gross-misconduct-allegation
- #ulcerative-colitis
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as an early years practitioner from July 2013 until her dismissal on 23 August 2021.
- The claimant raised concerns about underpayment of SSP, holiday pay, and pro-rata pay from early 2021.
- The respondent changed the claimant's pay from pro-rata to hours worked without agreement in May 2021.
- The claimant raised a formal grievance on 25 May 2021, which was dismissed save for partial upholding of holiday pay.
- The respondent invited the claimant to a disciplinary meeting on 23 August 2021, alleging gross misconduct for accusing the director of deceit and emotional abuse.
- The claimant was summarily dismissed on the evening of 23 August 2021, with no right of appeal.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began employment with the respondent (following a TUPE transfer) as an early years practitioner.
-
New contract signed
The claimant signed a new contract reducing hours to 24 per week, but pay continued pro-rata.
-
First pay query
The claimant telephoned Mr Porter about discrepancies in SSP and holiday pay.
-
SSP dispute
Mr Porter agreed the claimant should receive full SSP but later retracted, awaiting HMRC ruling.
-
Pay changed unilaterally
Mr Porter emailed that the claimant would be paid for hours worked, not pro-rata, without agreement.
-
Grievance raised
The claimant raised a formal grievance about pay, SSP, holiday pay, and Mr Porter's hostile emails.
-
Grievance outcome
The grievance was mostly dismissed; only holiday pay partially upheld. Mr Porter altered the outcome on hostile emails.
-
Appeal dismissed and disciplinary invited
Mr Porter dismissed the grievance appeal and invited the claimant to a disciplinary meeting for gross misconduct.
-
Investigation meeting and dismissal
The claimant attended an investigation meeting; later that evening she was summarily dismissed by email.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was dismissed because she had raised concerns about underpayment of statutory sick pay, holiday pay, and pro-rata pay, which would make the dismissal automatically unfair, or whether it was for conduct or some other substantial reason as argued by the employer.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claimant's claim for automatically unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, unauthorised deductions from wages, and breach of contract regarding pension contributions.
The key reasons were:
- The claimant had raised legitimate concerns about her pay, which amounted to asserting statutory rights.
- The employer's response was to invite her to a disciplinary meeting and summarily dismiss her the same evening, without a fair process or right of appeal.
- The tribunal rejected the employer's argument that the dismissal was for conduct or some other substantial reason.
Compensation will be determined at a separate remedy hearing.
Lessons & takeaways
- Raising concerns about underpayment of statutory rights, such as SSP or holiday pay, is a protected act – dismissing someone for this is automatically unfair regardless of length of service.
- Employers should not respond to a grievance by immediately disciplining the employee; this can be evidence that the real reason for dismissal is the grievance itself.
- A fair process requires a reasonable investigation, a proper hearing, and a right of appeal – dismissing an employee on the same day as a meeting is almost certainly unfair.
- Changing an employee's pay without agreement can be an unauthorised deduction from wages, which is a separate claim that can succeed alongside unfair dismissal.
A pay dispute that turned into a dismissal
This case shows how a dispute about pay can escalate into an automatically unfair dismissal when an employer fails to follow proper procedures. The claimant, an early years practitioner with eight years' service, had raised concerns about underpayment of statutory sick pay, holiday pay, and pro-rata pay from early 2021. Instead of addressing these concerns properly, the employer changed her pay unilaterally and then, after she raised a formal grievance, invited her to a disciplinary meeting for alleged gross misconduct.
The disciplinary meeting was held on 23 August 2021, and the claimant was summarily dismissed that same evening by email, with no right of appeal. The employer claimed the dismissal was for conduct or some other substantial reason, but the tribunal found that the real reason was her assertion of statutory rights.
What the employer did wrong
The employer made several critical errors. First, it failed to properly investigate the claimant's pay concerns. Second, it responded to a legitimate grievance by initiating disciplinary proceedings, which the tribunal saw as evidence that the grievance was the real reason for dismissal. Third, the process was fundamentally unfair: the claimant was dismissed on the same day as the investigation meeting, without any opportunity to appeal. The tribunal also noted that the employer's director, Mr Porter, had altered the grievance outcome to remove references to his own hostile emails, undermining the credibility of the process.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that employees who raise concerns about their statutory rights are protected from retaliation. Dismissing an employee for asserting a statutory right is automatically unfair, meaning the employee does not need two years' service to bring a claim. For employers, the message is clear: pay disputes should be handled fairly and through proper channels, not by disciplining the employee who raised them. For employees, it shows that raising legitimate concerns about pay is protected, and if you are dismissed as a result, you may have a strong claim for automatically unfair dismissal.
Similar cases
Barman dismissed after furlough dispute: whistleblowing claim rejected, but unpaid wages awarded
A barman who claimed he was dismissed for raising health and safety concerns during the pandemic lost his unfair dismissal case, but won over £3,200 for unpaid wages, notice pay and holiday pay.
Short-service engineer loses unfair dismissal claim but wins holiday pay
A static maintenance engineer with under two years' service could not bring an unfair dismissal claim, but the tribunal awarded £803.88 in unpaid holiday pay.
Cleaner dismissed during Covid-19: employer's failure to respond leads to £2,719 payout
A part-time cleaner who was dismissed after asking to be furloughed has won her unfair dismissal claim after her employer failed to submit a response to the tribunal.
TUPE transfer meant employer was not liable for constructive dismissal
Two employees who claimed constructive dismissal and unfair dismissal against Britannia Driving School Ltd had their claims dismissed after the tribunal found a TUPE transfer had already moved their employment to another company.