Travel consultant dismissed for second job during furlough: unfair but no compensation
A travel consultant was unfairly dismissed for working a second job without permission while on furlough, but the tribunal awarded nothing due to Polkey and contributory fault reductions.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #second-job-without-permission
- #furlough
- #polkey-reduction
- #contributory-conduct
- #procedural-unfairness
Key facts
- The claimant worked as a travel consultant for Rankin Travel Ltd from 28 May 2019 to 2 September 2021.
- The claimant carried out beauty treatments for Le Beauté Clinic during her employment without the respondent's written consent.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for misconduct, primarily for breaching the contractual term requiring written permission for other work.
- The respondent failed to notify the claimant of the allegations or hold a disciplinary meeting before dismissal.
- The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair but concluded that a fair procedure would have resulted in dismissal (100% Polkey reduction).
- The claimant's conduct caused the dismissal, leading to a 100% contributory fault reduction, extinguishing any award.
Timeline
-
Signed contract
The claimant signed a written statement of terms and conditions, including a clause requiring written consent for other employment.
-
Employment started
The claimant commenced employment as a travel consultant.
-
Covid-19 lockdown
The UK entered lockdown; the respondent placed most employees on furlough.
-
Full furlough
The claimant was placed on full furlough.
-
Flexi furlough started
Employees moved to flexi furlough.
-
Salary reduction agreed
Employees agreed to accept 80% salary to help the business; the claimant believed this reduced her contractual hours to 4 days a week.
-
Claimant informed manager of job search
The claimant messaged Ms Humpage about looking for another job while furloughed.
-
Claimant mentioned second job
In a WhatsApp message, the claimant said she had been doing another job since being furloughed.
-
Claimant spoke to payroll consultant
The claimant discussed her salary concerns with Mr Murphy but did not resolve them.
-
Claimant signed off sick
The claimant attended her GP and was signed off as not fit for work.
-
Dismissal
The respondent dismissed the claimant by letter, citing breach of contract by working for another business without permission.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed and, if so, what compensation should be awarded, considering whether a fair procedure would still have led to dismissal (Polkey reduction) and whether the claimant's conduct contributed to her dismissal (contributory fault reduction).
The outcome
The tribunal found that the dismissal was procedurally unfair because Rankin Travel Ltd did not notify the claimant of the allegations against her or hold a disciplinary meeting before dismissing her. However, the tribunal concluded that if a fair procedure had been followed, there was a 100% chance that the claimant would still have been fairly dismissed (Polkey reduction). Additionally, the claimant's conduct in working for another business without permission contributed 100% to her dismissal (contributory fault reduction). As a result, the basic and compensatory awards were reduced to zero, and the claimant received no compensation.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must follow a fair disciplinary process, including notifying the employee of allegations and holding a hearing, even if the misconduct seems clear-cut.
- Employees should be aware that taking on a second job without written permission may breach their contract and lead to dismissal, especially if the contract expressly requires consent.
- Even if a dismissal is procedurally unfair, a tribunal may award no compensation if it finds that a fair procedure would have resulted in the same outcome and the employee's conduct contributed to the dismissal.
- Furlough does not automatically suspend contractual terms such as restrictions on other work; employees should check their contracts and seek permission if needed.
A case of procedural unfairness with no payout
This case shows that even when an employer gets the process wrong, a claimant may still walk away empty-handed if the underlying conduct justifies dismissal. The travel consultant had been on furlough during the pandemic and started doing beauty treatments for another business without her employer's written permission. Her contract clearly required written consent for any other work. When Rankin Travel Ltd found out, it dismissed her by letter without any prior warning, investigation, or disciplinary meeting.
The tribunal acknowledged that this was procedurally unfair — the employer failed to give the claimant a chance to respond to the allegations. But it then applied two key reductions that wiped out any compensation. First, under the Polkey principle, the tribunal decided that even if a fair process had been followed, the claimant would still have been dismissed because the breach was serious and the employer had lost trust. Second, the claimant's own conduct — working without permission — was found to have contributed 100% to her dismissal.
What the employer could have done differently
Rankin Travel Ltd could have avoided a finding of unfair dismissal by following a basic disciplinary procedure. A simple letter inviting the claimant to a meeting to discuss the allegations, giving her the chance to explain, and then making a decision would have been enough. The tribunal noted that the employer had a contractual right to dismiss for gross misconduct, but the lack of process made the dismissal unfair. However, because the outcome would have been the same, the employer faced no financial penalty.
What this means for similar claims
For employees, this case is a reminder that procedural flaws alone do not guarantee compensation. Tribunals will look at whether a fair process would have made any difference. For employers, it shows that even when you think the case is clear-cut, you still need to follow a fair procedure — otherwise you risk a finding of unfair dismissal, even if no compensation is awarded. The case also highlights the importance of clear contractual terms: the express prohibition on other work without consent was crucial to the employer's defence.
Similar cases
Car valet dismissed for abusive language: procedural unfairness but no compensation awarded
A car valet with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after using foul language towards a colleague, but the tribunal awarded no compensation because his conduct wholly caused his dismissal.
Unfair dismissal win but zero compensation: procedural flaws didn't save manager
An operations manager with 11 years' service was unfairly dismissed after a flawed investigation into financial irregularities, but the tribunal awarded no compensation because a fair dismissal would have occurred anyway.
Tanker driver dismissed for delayed incident report: procedural failure but fair outcome
A tanker driver was unfairly dismissed after failing to report dropping a hose on her foot, but the tribunal found she would have been dismissed anyway, awarding only £807.
Caretaker unfairly dismissed after council panel included complainants' spouses
A part-time caretaker was unfairly dismissed by Fordbridge Town Council after a disciplinary panel included the wife of a complainant and an appeal panel included the husband of a witness. The tribunal awarded £1,060.41.