Hotel manager dismissed for being drunk at work: unfair dismissal but no compensation due to 100% contributory fault
A hotel manager was unfairly dismissed for gross misconduct after being drunk on the premises, but the tribunal found she was 100% to blame, awarding only £1,076 for the employer's failure to provide written particulars.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as manager of the Barrington Arms Hotel from 1 October 2017 until 29 January 2021.
- On 4 August 2020, the claimant took a day off, left an untrained friend in charge, and returned drunk to deal with a disturbance, leading to her arrest.
- Mr Saunders investigated and obtained witness statements alleging the claimant was often drunk on the premises.
- The claimant was dismissed on 30 December 2020 for gross misconduct (being under the influence of alcohol on the premises).
- The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair but that the claimant contributed 100% to her dismissal, so no compensation was awarded for unfair dismissal.
- The respondent failed to provide complete written particulars, so the claimant was awarded £1,076 (two weeks' pay) under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as manager of the Barrington Arms Hotel.
-
Incident at hotel
Claimant took a day off, left an untrained friend in charge, returned drunk, and was arrested for suspected assault.
-
Warning email
Mr Saunders emailed the claimant warning that being drunk in charge would lead to instant dismissal.
-
Police report received
Mr Saunders received a police report confirming the claimant was drunk and had assaulted customers.
-
Disciplinary meeting and dismissal
Mr Saunders held a meeting and handed the claimant a dismissal letter for gross misconduct.
-
Employment terminated
Claimant's employment ended after one month's notice.
-
Hearing day 1
First day of the employment tribunal hearing.
-
Hearing day 2
Second day of the hearing; judgment reserved.
-
Judgment issued
Tribunal found unfair dismissal but 100% contributory fault; awarded £1,076 for failure to provide written particulars.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed for misconduct, and if so, what compensation (if any) should be awarded, considering contributory fault and the employer's failure to provide written particulars.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the hotel manager was unfairly dismissed because the employer's disciplinary process was flawed. However, the manager's own behaviour – taking a day off, leaving an untrained friend in charge, returning drunk, and being arrested – was the sole reason for her dismissal. The tribunal applied 100% contributory fault, meaning she received nothing for the unfair dismissal itself.
Separately, the employer failed to provide complete written particulars of employment, so the manager was awarded two weeks' pay under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002:
- £1,076 (two weeks' pay)
Lessons & takeaways
- Even if a dismissal is procedurally unfair, a tribunal can reduce compensation to zero if the employee's own misconduct was the real cause of dismissal.
- Employers must provide full written particulars of employment; failure to do so can result in a penalty of up to four weeks' pay.
- Employees in a senior role, like a manager, are expected to set an example; serious misconduct like being drunk at work can justify dismissal even if the process is flawed.
- An employer's failure to follow a fair procedure does not automatically mean the employee will receive compensation if they were clearly at fault.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights how a tribunal can find a dismissal unfair on procedural grounds but still award no compensation because the employee's own actions were the real reason for losing their job. The hotel manager had three years' service and was dismissed after an incident where she took a day off, left an untrained friend in charge, returned drunk, and was arrested. The employer's investigation was flawed – for example, it relied on witness statements that were not put to the manager – making the dismissal procedurally unfair. But the tribunal was clear: the manager's conduct was so serious that she was 100% to blame for her dismissal.
What the losing side could have done differently
The employer, N & C Leisure Limited, could have avoided the unfair dismissal finding by following a proper disciplinary process. That would have included giving the manager a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations, providing witness statements in advance, and considering her explanation. However, even if they had done all that, the outcome would likely have been the same – dismissal for gross misconduct – because the evidence of her being drunk at work was strong. The employer's real mistake was failing to provide written particulars of employment, which cost them £1,076.
Why the result matters for similar claims
For employees, this case is a reminder that procedural unfairness does not guarantee compensation. If a tribunal decides you were largely responsible for your own dismissal, you may get nothing for the unfairness. For employers, it shows that even a strong case for misconduct can be undermined by a poor process – but also that a 100% contributory fault finding can wipe out compensation entirely. The case also underscores the importance of providing written particulars: a simple administrative failure can lead to a separate award even when the main claim fails.
Similar cases
Dismissed for mishearing an instruction: a conduct case that failed to consider the possibility of misunderstanding
A purge and relight engineer with five years' service was unfairly dismissed after a dispute over whether he was told to return to a work site. The tribunal found the employer failed to consider the possibility of miscommunication and did not interview a key witness.
Butcher dismissed for attending work after positive COVID test: dismissal unfair but compensation cut by 75%
A butcher with 12 years' service was summarily dismissed for coming to work after testing positive for COVID-19. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair but reduced compensation by 75% for contributory fault.
Dismissed without a meeting or appeal: a conduct case with big reductions
A former employee of Fairview Grocers Limited was unfairly dismissed without any meeting or right of appeal, but his own conduct led to a 60% cut in compensation. He was awarded £3,752.89 in total.
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.