Dismissed for not being an 'A player': unfair dismissal after 2 years' service
An office administrator with two years' service was unfairly dismissed after being told she was not an 'A player'. The tribunal awarded £3,809.67, including an ACAS uplift for failing to follow a fair procedure.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #casual-to-permanent
- #associate-employer
- #acas-code-uplift
- #polkey-deduction
- #contributory-fault
- #carried-over-holiday
- #written-particulars
Key facts
- The claimant started work for the respondent on 1 April 2019 on a casual basis and became a permanent employee on 29 April 2019.
- The claimant moved to work for an associated company, The Work Cafe Ltd., on 22 June 2020 and returned to the respondent on 14 April 2021.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant on 1 June 2021, giving a reason of business restructure, but the real reason was that the claimant was not considered an 'A' player.
- The respondent did not follow any disciplinary or grievance procedure before dismissing the claimant.
- The claimant was not provided with a written statement of employment particulars.
- The claimant was entitled to carry over 4 weeks' holiday from the 2020-2021 leave year due to the effects of coronavirus.
Timeline
-
Claimant starts work for respondent
The claimant began working for the respondent on a casual basis at the Bexhill office.
-
Agreement to permanent employment
The claimant and Mr Stone agreed that she would become a permanent employee working 40 hours per week at £450 per week.
-
Permanent employment commences
The claimant started working as a permanent employee.
-
Claimant placed on payroll
The claimant was put onto the payroll with tax and NI deductions.
-
Employment with respondent ends
The claimant's employment with Links Waste Management Ltd. ended.
-
Claimant starts work for The Work Cafe Ltd.
The claimant began working for the associated company, The Work Cafe Ltd., managing the cafe.
-
Informed of return to respondent
Mr Stone told the claimant she would return to work for Links Waste Management Ltd. due to the cafe's financial difficulties.
-
Claimant returns to respondent
The claimant returned to work for the respondent, but expressed unhappiness about the move.
-
Dismissal
Mr Stone dismissed the claimant with one week's notice, citing a business restructure.
-
Grievance meeting
The claimant attended a grievance meeting, but no outcome was provided.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was an employee with continuous service from April 2019, despite a period working for an associated company, and whether her dismissal for not being an 'A player' was unfair.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The key reasons were:
- The respondent gave a false reason of business restructure but the real reason was that the claimant was not considered an 'A player'.
- No fair procedure was followed: no warnings, no opportunity to improve, and no grievance outcome.
- The claimant's continuity of service was preserved under the 'associate employer' provisions when she moved to an associated company.
Compensation breakdown:
- Basic award: £1,174.50
- Compensatory award: £3,809.67 (after 50% Polkey reduction for chance she would have resigned, and 10% contributory fault reduction)
- ACAS Code uplift of 10% applied to compensatory award, notice pay, and holiday pay
- Additional award for failure to provide written particulars: 2 weeks' pay
Lessons & takeaways
- If you work for an associated company and return to the original employer, your continuous service may be preserved under section 218(6) of the Employment Rights Act.
- Dismissing an employee for subjective reasons like 'not being an A player' without a fair process is likely to be unfair.
- Employers should follow a proper disciplinary or capability procedure before dismissing, even if they believe the employee is not performing.
- The ACAS Code of Practice applies to dismissals; failure to follow it can result in an uplift of up to 25% on compensation.
- Employees with less than two years' service may still have unfair dismissal rights if they have continuous service from an earlier start date.
When 'not being an A player' isn't a fair reason to dismiss
This case shows how a seemingly straightforward dismissal can unravel when an employer fails to follow basic procedures. The office administrator had worked for the company since April 2019, with a period at an associated company. When she returned, her director decided she was not an 'A player' and dismissed her, citing a business restructure that the tribunal found was not the real reason.
The tribunal noted that the respondent did not give the claimant any warning, opportunity to improve, or chance to respond to concerns. No disciplinary or grievance procedure was followed, and the claimant's grievance meeting produced no outcome. This lack of process was a key factor in the unfair dismissal finding.
What the employer could have done differently
The respondent could have avoided this outcome by being honest about the performance concerns and following a capability procedure. Even if the claimant was not meeting expectations, a fair process would have included setting clear objectives, providing support, and giving her a chance to improve. Instead, the dismissal was based on a vague label with no evidence or opportunity for the claimant to respond.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case highlights two important points for employees. First, continuous service can be preserved when moving between associated companies, meaning even short periods back with the original employer may count towards the two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal. Second, subjective reasons like 'not being an A player' are not automatically fair grounds for dismissal — the employer must follow a fair procedure and show that the reason falls within one of the five statutory fair reasons.
The tribunal also applied a 50% Polkey reduction because there was a chance the claimant would have resigned anyway, and a 10% reduction for contributory fault. Even so, the compensation of £3,809.67 plus notice and holiday pay shows that failing to follow a fair process can be costly.
Similar cases
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.
Care worker's constructive dismissal claim succeeds after ambush disciplinary meeting
A care worker who resigned after being ambushed with disciplinary allegations in a meeting she believed was a supervision session has won her constructive unfair dismissal claim, receiving £8,903.
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 without a meeting or appeal: a conduct case with big reductions
A former employee of Fairview Grocers Limited was unfairly dismissed without any meeting or right of appeal, but his own conduct led to a 60% cut in compensation. He was awarded £3,752.89 in total.