Dismissed after client demanded removal: unfair dismissal for service desk consultant
An IT help desk consultant was unfairly dismissed after her employer caved to client pressure following a missed handover email. The tribunal awarded £10,787.47, reduced by a third for her own fault.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #long-term-sickness
- #type-2-diabetes
- #shift-adjustment
- #third-party-pressure
- #acas-code-uplift
- #procedural-unfairness
Key facts
- The claimant was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes in February 2019 and requested day shifts only.
- On 22 June 2019, the claimant missed a handover email about an engineer visit and took a break, failing to answer calls or messages for about an hour.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct after LME demanded her removal from the contract.
- The disciplinary hearing was procedurally unfair as the decision to dismiss was made before the claimant could present her case.
- The tribunal found the dismissal unfair but rejected disability discrimination claims.
- The claimant was awarded compensation with a 33.33% reduction for contributory fault and a 25% Acas uplift.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant began working for Intergence Systems Ltd as a service desk consultant on the LME contract.
-
Diabetes diagnosis
Claimant diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes and informed her line manager, Kyle Rokkas.
-
Request for shift change
Claimant requested day shifts only on medical advice; respondent offered day shifts for three months from early May.
-
Appraisal meeting
During appraisal, Rokkas suggested claimant might seek work elsewhere if she wanted Monday-Friday 9-5, which LME could not accommodate.
-
Incident leading to dismissal
Claimant missed handover email about engineer visit, took a break, and failed to answer calls/messages for about an hour, causing delay in granting access.
-
Suspension
Claimant suspended with immediate effect following LME's request for her removal.
-
Disciplinary hearing and dismissal
At the hearing, claimant was told she was instantly dismissed before being given an opportunity to comment.
-
Appeal rejected
Appeal hearing held on 1 August 2019; rejection letter sent on 20 August 2019.
-
Liability judgment
Tribunal upheld unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims; dismissed disability discrimination claims.
-
Remedy hearing
Tribunal awarded compensation with 33.33% contributory fault reduction and 25% Acas uplift.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed for misconduct, and whether her dismissal amounted to disability discrimination or harassment.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims, but dismissed all disability discrimination claims.
Key reasons:
- The disciplinary hearing was a sham: the decision to dismiss was made before the claimant could give her account.
- The employer failed to consider moving the claimant to another site or contract, instead bowing to client pressure.
- However, the claimant's own conduct (missing the handover email and failing to respond for an hour) contributed to the situation.
Compensation breakdown:
- Basic award: £1,050.00
- Compensatory award: £10,787.47
- Polkey reduction: 0%
- Contributory fault reduction: 33.33%
- Acas Code uplift: 25%
- Total: £10,787.47
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must not outsource disciplinary decisions to clients; a fair process requires independent judgment.
- A pre-decided outcome at a disciplinary hearing is a clear sign of procedural unfairness that tribunals will not accept.
- Employees with health conditions should document their requests for adjustments and any pressure from third parties.
- Even if an employee's conduct contributed to the situation, a fair process can still lead to a finding of unfair dismissal.
A dismissal decided before the hearing
A service desk consultant working 12-hour shifts on a client contract was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes in February 2019. She asked for day shifts only, which her employer initially accommodated for three months. But at an appraisal in May, her line manager suggested she might need to find another job if she wanted permanent Monday-to-Friday hours.
A month later, the consultant missed a handover email about an engineer visit and took a break, failing to answer calls or messages for about an hour. The client, LME, demanded her removal from the contract. The employer suspended her and held a disciplinary hearing — but at the start of that hearing, she was told she was instantly dismissed before she could say anything.
What the employer got wrong
The tribunal found that the employer had effectively outsourced its decision to the client. The disciplinary hearing was a sham: the outcome was predetermined. The employer had not considered moving the consultant to another site or contract, nor had it carried out a reasonable investigation into the incident. The dismissal was therefore procedurally unfair.
However, the tribunal rejected claims of disability discrimination. It found that the consultant's diabetes did not cause the misconduct, and the employer's actions were not motivated by her disability. The consultant's own failure to respond during her break contributed to the situation, leading to a 33.33% reduction in compensation for contributory fault.
Why this matters
This case shows that third-party pressure — even from a major client — does not justify bypassing a fair disciplinary process. Employers must make their own decisions based on proper investigation and give employees a genuine opportunity to respond. For employees, it highlights the importance of documenting requests for adjustments and any external pressure that may affect their employment. The Acas Code uplift of 25% also underscores the financial penalty for ignoring procedural fairness.
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.
Dismissed while on sick leave: fixed-term contract not renewed without consultation
A mental health practitioner with 15 years' experience was unfairly dismissed when her fixed-term contract was not renewed while she was on long-term sick leave. The tribunal awarded £33,443.28.
Meter reader with 16 years' service unfairly dismissed for ill health capability
A meter reader who was dismissed while on long-term sick leave after a motorbike accident has won his unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claim. The tribunal found that Morrison Data Services Ltd failed to obtain an up-to-date occupational health report before deciding to dismiss.
Dismissed while on sick leave: employer ignored offer of imminent return
A tribunal found that EE Limited unfairly dismissed a broadband technical support worker with panic disorder after it refused to wait a week for her to return to work, and also discriminated against her because of her disability.