Dismissed while on approved annual leave: a catastrophic administrative error by Tesco
A part-time customer assistant with 27 years' service was dismissed for gross misconduct after Tesco mistakenly believed she was absent without leave when she was actually on approved annual leave. The tribunal awarded £4,934.18 in compensation.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #long-service
- #part-time
- #gross-misconduct
- #erroneous-belief
- #mitigation-failure
- #acas-code
Key facts
- The claimant was employed from 16 August 1993 until dismissal on 10 March 2020.
- She worked one day a week on a Sunday as a Customer Assistant.
- The respondent dismissed her for gross misconduct after she failed to attend a shift, believing she was absent without leave.
- The claimant was on agreed annual leave at the time of the alleged absence.
- The respondent conceded liability for unfair dismissal, unauthorised deductions, and breach of contract.
- The claimant did not appeal the dismissal and did not accept an offer of re-engagement.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for Tesco Stores Ltd as a Customer Assistant.
-
Annual leave requested
Claimant requested annual leave for 23 February 2020 onwards.
-
Claimant on leave
Claimant was abroad on agreed annual leave; she did not attend her scheduled shift.
-
Letter about absence
Respondent wrote to claimant advising she was absent without leave and inviting her to a disciplinary hearing.
-
First disciplinary hearing missed
Claimant did not attend the disciplinary hearing; respondent rescheduled.
-
Dismissal
Respondent held disciplinary hearing in claimant's absence, found gross misconduct, and dismissed her summarily.
-
Claimant returned from leave
Claimant discovered she had been dismissed; she did not appeal within the 7-day deadline.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented claims of unfair dismissal, discrimination, and other complaints to the tribunal.
-
Re-engagement offer
Respondent offered claimant re-engagement on same terms; claimant did not receive or accept the offer.
-
Liability conceded
Respondent conceded liability for unfair dismissal, unauthorised deductions, and breach of contract.
-
Remedy hearing
Tribunal held a remedy hearing to determine compensation.
-
Judgment on remedy
Employment Judge Tsamados issued reserved judgment awarding total compensation of £4,934.18.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide the appropriate compensation for unfair dismissal, unauthorised deductions from wages, and breach of contract after Tesco admitted liability for dismissing a long-serving employee while she was on approved annual leave.
The outcome
The tribunal awarded a total of £4,934.18 in compensation to the claimant.
- Basic award: £1,560.90
- Compensatory award: £1,698.38
- Unauthorised deductions from wages: £680.59
- Damages for breach of contract (notice pay): £994.31
No Polkey or contributory fault reductions were applied. The claimant did not appeal the dismissal and did not accept an offer of re-engagement, which limited her loss of earnings.
Lessons & takeaways
- Check your records thoroughly before starting disciplinary action — a simple administrative error like mistaking approved leave for unauthorised absence can make a dismissal automatically unfair.
- Even if you have long service (here 27 years), the employer must still follow a fair process; getting the basic facts wrong is a clear failure.
- If you are dismissed, consider appealing within the deadline — it may resolve the issue quickly and could affect your compensation.
- Offers of re-engagement can reduce the compensation you receive if you unreasonably refuse them.
A catastrophic administrative error
This case shows how a simple administrative mistake can lead to a fundamentally unfair dismissal. The claimant, a part-time customer assistant working one day a week, had been employed by Tesco for 27 years. She had requested and been granted annual leave for 23 February 2020 onwards. While she was abroad on that leave, Tesco recorded her as absent without leave and began disciplinary proceedings. By the time she returned, she had already been dismissed for gross misconduct.
What Tesco could have done differently
Tesco could have avoided this entirely by checking its own records before jumping to conclusions. A quick look at the annual leave system would have shown the claimant was on approved holiday. Instead, the company sent a letter on 2 March 2020 accusing her of unauthorised absence, held a disciplinary hearing in her absence on 10 March, and dismissed her summarily. When the claimant returned from leave on 19 March, she discovered she had lost her job. Tesco later offered re-engagement, but the claimant did not receive or accept it.
Why the result matters
The case is a reminder that employers must get the basic facts right before dismissing anyone, especially a long-serving employee. Tesco conceded liability once the error became clear, but the claimant still had to go through a remedy hearing to secure compensation. The total award of £4,934.18 reflects her loss of earnings, unpaid wages, and notice pay. While the sum is modest, the principle is important: even a part-time worker with decades of service is entitled to a fair process and accurate record-keeping.
Similar cases
32-year employee dismissed for unauthorised absence: employer's decision upheld
A warehouse operative with 32 years' service was fairly dismissed after failing to contact his employer for nearly a month. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.
Emergency medical technician dismissed for using racist language: 15 years' service didn't save her job
A tribunal has upheld the dismissal of an EMT with 15 years' service who used the n-word about a black colleague on two occasions, finding the employer's investigation and decision were within the range of reasonable responses.
16-year service, one clear breach: dismissal for gross misconduct upheld
A senior customer advisor with 16 years' unblemished service was dismissed for gross misconduct after creating two accounts for one customer. The tribunal upheld the decision, finding the employer acted reasonably.
24-year manager dismissed for falsifying delivery records: tribunal upholds gross misconduct decision
An operations manager with 24 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after making unauthorised manual carded entries and giving incorrect explanations. The tribunal rejected both his unfair and wrongful dismissal claims.