Head baker dismissed without warning or appeal: a case on poor performance procedures
A head baker with six years' service was dismissed for poor-quality bread without any formal warning or right to appeal. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair and awarded £15,703, reduced by 50% for his own conduct.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #poor-performance
- #bread-quality
- #acas-code-uplift
- #contributory-conduct
- #holiday-pay-overpayment
- #written-particulars
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as Head Baker from October 2015 until dismissal on 20 December 2021.
- The respondent bakery closed in October 2022.
- The claimant was dismissed without warning, without a fair procedure, and without a right of appeal.
- The claimant had produced poor-quality bread, but warnings were not effectively communicated due to language barriers and informal methods.
- The claimant was overpaid holiday pay in his final payslip, which reduced the compensatory award.
- The respondent failed to update written particulars of employment when the claimant's pay changed.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as Assistant Head Baker, later became Head Baker.
-
First written warning left
A note about bread quality was left on claimant's workbench, but he did not see or understand it.
-
Second written warning left
Another note about bread quality was left, again not effectively communicated.
-
Verbal warning
Mrs Parkins gave a verbal warning about bread quality and flour rotation.
-
Final written warning left
A final written warning was left on claimant's bench, but he did not see it.
-
Dismissal meeting
Claimant was called to a meeting without notice and dismissed for poor performance.
-
Dismissal confirmed in writing
Claimant received a letter confirming dismissal with four weeks' pay in lieu of notice.
-
Notice period ended
Claimant's notice pay covered up to this date.
-
Started building work
Claimant began self-employed building work after failing to find bakery jobs.
-
Bakery closed
The respondent's bakery shut down, ending the period of loss considered for compensation.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal for poor performance was fair in all the circumstances, and if not, what compensation should be awarded after taking into account the employee's own contribution to the dismissal and the employer's failure to follow the ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the head baker was unfairly dismissed. The employer had not followed any fair procedure: there were no formal warnings, no proper investigation, no opportunity to respond, and no right of appeal. The dismissal was therefore procedurally unfair.
However, the tribunal also found that the employee's own poor performance contributed to the dismissal, so compensation was reduced by 50%. Because the employer failed to follow the ACAS Code, the award was then increased by 25%.
The compensation awarded was:
- Basic award: £2,040 (reduced to £1,020 after 50% contributory fault, then uplifted to £1,275)
- Compensatory award: £12,575.21 (reduced to £6,287.60, then uplifted to £7,859.50)
- Total: £15,703.21 (including a further £1,088 for failure to provide written particulars of employment changes)
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must follow a fair procedure before dismissing for poor performance, including giving warnings, holding meetings, and offering a right of appeal.
- Informal notes left on a workbench do not count as proper warnings, especially if there are language barriers or the employee may not see them.
- If an employee's own conduct contributed to the dismissal, compensation can be reduced by up to 100%.
- Failing to follow the ACAS Code of Practice can lead to a 25% uplift on compensation.
- Employers must provide written particulars of any changes to terms and conditions, or risk a separate award of up to four weeks' pay.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights how a bakery's informal approach to managing poor performance led to an unfair dismissal. The head baker had been employed for six years and was responsible for bread quality. The employer left written warnings on his workbench, but the employee did not see or understand them due to language barriers. No formal meetings were held, and the employee was dismissed without warning in a brief meeting.
The tribunal found that the employer had not acted reasonably. A fair process would have included clear communication, proper warnings, an opportunity to improve, and a right of appeal. The employer's failure to follow any procedure meant the dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer could have avoided this outcome by following a simple disciplinary process. They should have held formal meetings with the employee, explained the concerns clearly, and given him a chance to respond. They should have issued written warnings that were actually received and understood, and allowed time for improvement. Finally, they should have offered a right of appeal.
Why the result matters
This case is a reminder that even small employers must follow basic fair procedures. The fact that the employee contributed to the problem did not excuse the lack of process. The 50% reduction for contributory fault and the 25% uplift for failing to follow the ACAS Code show how compensation can be adjusted to reflect both sides' behaviour. For employees, it shows that a lack of formal warnings can be a strong argument for unfair dismissal, even if performance was genuinely poor.
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.
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.
Control room team leader dismissed over hug and anti-Semitism allegations: unfair but compensation slashed
A tribunal found that MTR Elizabeth Line unfairly dismissed a control room team leader of 11 years over a hug and alleged anti-Semitic comments, but reduced compensation by 75% due to his own conduct.
Warehouse operative unfairly dismissed after mitigation ignored in conduct case
An employment tribunal found ASDA unfairly dismissed a warehouse operative with 18 years' service after failing to investigate his mitigation evidence, awarding £14,817 in compensation.