Dismissed without a hearing: a procedural failure that cost nothing
A Reablement Support Assistant with 13 years' service was dismissed for conduct after a disciplinary hearing she could not attend because the Teams link was sent to the wrong email address. The tribunal found the dismissal substantively fair but procedurally unfair, though no compensation was awarded.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #long-term-sickness
- #domestic-violence
- #homelessness
- #childcare-difficulties
- #tagging-system
- #final-written-warning
- #polkey-reduction
Key facts
- The claimant worked as a Reablement Support Assistant from September 2009 until dismissal in May 2022.
- She had persistent timekeeping and tagging issues from 2018, despite informal and formal management interventions.
- She received a final written warning in May 2021 for similar conduct.
- The disciplinary hearing in May 2022 proceeded without the claimant because the Teams link was sent to an incorrect email address.
- The tribunal found the dismissal substantively fair but procedurally unfair due to the failure to allow the claimant to present her case.
- A 100% Polkey reduction was applied, meaning no compensatory award was due.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began work as a Reablement Support Assistant for Bristol City Council.
-
First timekeeping meeting
Manager Ms Pearce held a meeting about timekeeping issues.
-
Informal meeting
Informal meeting regarding timekeeping and tagging issues; letter sent.
-
Management Instruction letter
Claimant issued with a letter of Management Instruction for conduct issues.
-
Tagging system reinstated
Tagging system resumed after COVID suspension; claimant late and failed to tag.
-
Investigation started
Ms Stone began disciplinary investigation into six allegations.
-
First disciplinary hearing
Hearing resulted in a final written warning issued on 18 May 2021.
-
Suspension
Claimant suspended pending investigation into further conduct issues.
-
Investigation report completed
Ms Moon's report recommended a disciplinary hearing.
-
Disciplinary hearing without claimant
Hearing proceeded in claimant's absence due to wrong email address for Teams link.
-
Dismissal letter
Claimant dismissed with 12 weeks' notice.
-
Appeal submitted
Appeal received but rejected as out of time.
-
Judgment issued
Tribunal found dismissal procedurally unfair but substantively fair; 100% Polkey reduction.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal for misconduct was both substantively and procedurally fair, and whether any compensation should be reduced if the claimant would have been dismissed anyway even with a fair process.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the claimant was unfairly dismissed on procedural grounds, but not on substantive grounds.
- The key reason for the procedural unfairness was that the disciplinary hearing on 24 May 2022 proceeded without the claimant because the Teams link was sent to an incorrect email address ([email protected] instead of [email protected]). This meant she was not given a reasonable opportunity to present her case.
- However, the tribunal found that the decision to dismiss was substantively fair, given the claimant's persistent conduct issues despite warnings, and that a fair process would not have changed the outcome.
- A 100% Polkey reduction was applied, meaning no compensatory award was due. The claimant is entitled only to a basic award, the amount of which is to be determined separately.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must ensure that disciplinary hearing invitations are sent to the correct email address and that the employee has a genuine opportunity to attend; a simple administrative error can render a dismissal procedurally unfair.
- A long service record does not automatically protect against dismissal if there is a pattern of misconduct, but it does require the employer to follow a fair process.
- Even if a dismissal is found procedurally unfair, the tribunal may apply a Polkey reduction to reduce or eliminate compensation if it concludes the employee would have been dismissed anyway with a fair process.
- Employees should check their contact details are correct on file and raise any communication issues immediately to avoid missing important meetings.
A dismissal that was fair in substance but flawed in process
This case shows how a seemingly small administrative error can turn a fair dismissal into an unfair one. The claimant, a Reablement Support Assistant with 13 years' service, had a long history of timekeeping and tagging issues dating back to 2018. Despite informal meetings, a management instruction, and a final written warning in May 2021, the problems persisted. By May 2022, the employer had decided to dismiss her for conduct.
However, the disciplinary hearing on 24 May 2022 was held in the claimant's absence. The Teams invitation was sent to an incorrect email address — a typo that meant she never received it. The tribunal found that this procedural failure deprived her of the chance to present her case, making the dismissal procedurally unfair.
What the employer could have done differently
Bristol City Council could have avoided this outcome by double-checking the email address before sending the invitation. The claimant had previously used a different email ([email protected]) for a grievance meeting in April 2022, and the employer had that address on record. A simple verification step — or a follow-up phone call when the claimant did not attend — would have prevented the procedural flaw.
Why the result matters
The tribunal's decision highlights an important distinction: a dismissal can be substantively fair but procedurally unfair. Here, the employer had good reasons to dismiss based on the claimant's conduct, but the flawed process meant the dismissal was unfair. However, the tribunal applied a 100% Polkey reduction, concluding that even with a fair hearing, the claimant would have been dismissed anyway. This means she received no compensatory award — only a basic award, the amount of which is yet to be determined.
For employees, this case is a reminder that procedural errors can be grounds for an unfair dismissal claim, but compensation may be limited if the outcome would have been the same. For employers, it underscores the importance of meticulous communication in disciplinary processes.
Similar cases
Dismissed while hospitalised with sickle cell crisis: procedural failings made it unfair
A pharmacist with 20 years' service was unfairly dismissed by Whittington Health NHS Trust after being refused an extension to her notice period while hospitalised with a sickle cell crisis. The tribunal found indirect disability discrimination and a failure to make reasonable adjustments, awarding £16,884.
Faculty manager with 23 years' service unfairly dismissed after redundancy selection tainted by disability bias
A tribunal found that Canterbury Christ Church University unfairly dismissed a faculty manager and discriminated against her because of her disability when it decided she was not appointable to a new role due to her ill health. She was awarded £32,684.
Dismissed for 'irretrievable breakdown'? Tribunal finds true reason was performance
An IT Business Partner with 10 years' service was unfairly dismissed by Transport for London after the tribunal found the real reason was poor performance, not a breakdown in relationships. Compensation will be reduced by 35% due to her own conduct.
Geography teacher dismissed after relationship breakdown: unfair dismissal and victimisation claim succeeds in part
A tribunal found that a geography teacher with seven years' service was unfairly dismissed by United Learning Trust after a breakdown in relationships, and that a headteacher victimised him by providing a negative reference. He was awarded £36,677.70.