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.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a barman from 27 September 2019 until 19 June 2020.
- The claimant was furloughed on 1 April 2020 due to the Covid-19 lockdown.
- The claimant made a protected disclosure on 5 June 2020 about health and safety risks of working during the pandemic.
- The claimant was dismissed without notice on 19 June 2020 after a series of arguments with the director.
- The tribunal found the claimant was not dismissed for making a protected disclosure but for other reasons including lateness and attitude.
- The respondent failed to pay the claimant's wages for May and June 2020 and holiday pay on termination.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began working as a barman at Voodoo cocktail bar.
-
Lockdown announced
The UK government announced a national lockdown due to Covid-19.
-
Claimant furloughed
The claimant was placed on furlough and received furlough pay for April.
-
Claimant painted toilet
The claimant painted the women's toilet at the bar, which later became a point of dispute.
-
Meeting with director
The claimant met with Mr Anderson and Ms Ayers; Mr Anderson allegedly called the claimant a 'ponce'.
-
Protected disclosure made
The claimant sent a WhatsApp message to Mr Anderson raising health and safety concerns about working during the pandemic.
-
Claimant apologised
The claimant sent an apology message to Mr Anderson, promising to improve punctuality and attitude.
-
Partial payment received
The claimant received £400 from the respondent, which was a partial payment of furlough pay.
-
Dismissal communicated
Ms Ayers told the claimant he was fired, but could return if he came back to work for takeaways.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented his claim to the employment tribunal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the barman was automatically unfairly dismissed for making a protected disclosure about health and safety risks during the pandemic, and whether the employer had made unlawful deductions from wages and failed to pay holiday pay.
The outcome
The tribunal rejected the claim of automatic unfair dismissal, finding that the principal reason for dismissal was the barman's conduct (lateness and attitude) rather than the protected disclosure. However, the tribunal upheld claims for breach of contract and unlawful deduction from wages.
Compensation awarded:
- Unpaid notice pay: £283.50
- Unpaid wages (May and June 2020): £1,606.52
- Holiday pay on termination: £1,386.00
- Total: £3,276.02
Lessons & takeaways
- Making a protected disclosure does not automatically protect you from dismissal if there are other valid conduct reasons for the decision.
- Employers must continue to pay wages and holiday pay even during furlough, unless a valid deduction is agreed.
- Keep clear records of all communications about grievances and pay issues to support your case.
- Short-serving employees (under 2 years) cannot claim ordinary unfair dismissal, but can claim automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing or other protected reasons.
A dispute that escalated during lockdown
This case highlights how quickly a working relationship can break down during the pressures of the pandemic. The barman, who had worked at the Voodoo cocktail bar for just nine months, was furloughed in April 2020. When the bar began to reopen, tensions arose over working conditions, pay, and the employee's punctuality. A WhatsApp message raising health and safety concerns about working during COVID-19 was later cited as the reason for dismissal, but the tribunal found that the real trigger was a series of arguments about lateness and attitude.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer, H &AB-Side Limited, failed to follow any formal disciplinary process. The barman was dismissed on the spot without notice, and the director's offer to let him return to work for takeaways only added to the confusion. More importantly, the employer did not pay the barman's wages for May and June 2020, nor his accrued holiday pay. These failures turned what might have been a straightforward conduct dismissal into a successful claim for unlawful deductions and breach of contract.
Why this matters for similar claims
For employees with less than two years' service, the ability to claim unfair dismissal is limited unless the reason is automatically unfair, such as whistleblowing. Here, the tribunal carefully examined the chronology and concluded that the protected disclosure was not the principal reason for dismissal. However, the case is a reminder that employers cannot ignore basic contractual obligations, even during a crisis. The award of over £3,200 for unpaid wages, notice pay and holiday pay shows that tribunals will enforce these rights regardless of the overall fairness of the dismissal.
Similar cases
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.
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.
Removed from payroll without warning: constructive unfair dismissal win for HR manager
A human resources manager was awarded £7,222 after her employer removed her from the payroll without notice, refused holiday leave, and underpaid her for months. The tribunal upheld her claim of constructive unfair dismissal.
IT manager dismissed in redundancy pool of one: whistleblowing claim fails
An IT Service Desk Manager with two years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy after being placed in a pool of one. His claims that the dismissal was due to protected disclosures about Covid-19 safety were rejected by the tribunal.