Dismissed after 24 years for refusing contract changes: a procedurally unfair SOSR dismissal
A line operator with 24 years' service was unfairly dismissed after refusing to accept new terms and conditions. The tribunal found the process flawed but ruled he would have been dismissed anyway by a later date.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #business-reorganisation
- #language-difficulties
- #procedural-unfairness
- #lack-of-appeal
- #holiday-pay
- #sickness-during-notice
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a line operator from 26 March 1998 until dismissal on 3 October 2022.
- The respondent sought to change terms and conditions for all shopfloor employees due to business restructuring.
- The claimant was the only employee out of 47 who did not accept the proposed changes.
- The claimant had limited English and was not adequately consulted before dismissal.
- The dismissal was procedurally unfair but the claimant would have been dismissed by 31 January 2023 had a fair procedure been followed.
- The claimant is entitled to 9 days' accrued holiday pay as he was sick during his notice period.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started work as a line operator.
-
Company acquired
Respondent acquired by KSM Holdings Limited.
-
Notice of proposed contract changes
Respondent emailed all employees about proposed changes to terms and conditions.
-
Claimant on leave
Claimant went on authorised leave to Pakistan until 1 August 2022.
-
Claimant returned from unauthorised leave
Claimant returned over 4 weeks late.
-
Final written warning
Claimant received final written warning for unauthorised absence.
-
Grievance submitted
Claimant emailed grievances including against the final warning and contract changes.
-
Grievance meeting
Meeting held with Mr Minhas and Mrs Kaur as interpreter; claimant rejected changes.
-
Claimant rejected changes
Claimant emailed to confirm he would not accept the proposed contract changes.
-
Dismissal
Respondent dismissed claimant with 12 weeks' notice ending 25 December 2022.
-
Claimant signed off sick
Claimant submitted doctor's note for stress and anxiety; did not work during notice.
-
Effective date of termination
Claimant's employment ended.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the reason for dismissal was 'some other substantial reason' (SOSR) due to business reorganisation, and if so, whether the dismissal was fair under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed on procedural grounds. The reason for dismissal was SOSR (business reorganisation), but the employer's process fell short: there was inadequate consultation given the claimant's limited English, no proper warning of dismissal risk, and no right of appeal.
However, the tribunal applied a Polkey reduction, finding that had a fair procedure been followed, the claimant would have been fairly dismissed by 31 January 2023. This means compensation will be limited to the period between the actual dismissal and that date, plus the basic award.
The claimant is also entitled to 9 days' accrued holiday pay, as he was sick during his notice period and could not take holiday.
Compensation will be determined at a remedies hearing, but the tribunal's findings indicate:
- Basic award: based on length of service and age
- Compensatory award: limited to loss from 3 October 2022 to 31 January 2023
- Holiday pay: 9 days' accrued pay
Lessons & takeaways
- Long-serving employees are entitled to a more thorough consultation process, especially if they have language difficulties or other vulnerabilities.
- Employers should ensure that any dismissal for refusing contract changes is preceded by meaningful consultation, a clear warning of the risk of dismissal, and a right of appeal.
- Even if a dismissal is procedurally unfair, compensation may be reduced if the tribunal finds the employee would have been dismissed anyway under a fair procedure (Polkey reduction).
- Employees who are sick during their notice period may still be entitled to accrued holiday pay if they were unable to take holiday due to illness.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights the risks employers face when restructuring terms and conditions, particularly with long-serving employees. The claimant had worked for the company for 24 years and was the only one of 47 shopfloor employees who refused to accept proposed contract changes. The tribunal accepted that the employer had a genuine business reason for the changes, but the way it handled the claimant's refusal was flawed.
The key problem was the lack of proper consultation. The claimant had limited English and could not read or write in English, yet the employer did not take adequate steps to ensure he understood the proposals or the consequences of refusal. He was not given a clear warning that he risked dismissal, and he was denied a right of appeal. These failures made the dismissal procedurally unfair.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer could have avoided the unfairness finding by providing a translator or interpreter during the consultation process, giving the claimant a written summary in his own language, and ensuring he had a genuine opportunity to ask questions and raise concerns. Offering a right of appeal would also have helped. The tribunal noted that the employer followed ACAS guidance in general, but did not adapt it to the claimant's individual circumstances.
Why the result matters
The case is a reminder that procedural fairness is not a tick-box exercise. Employers must tailor their approach to each employee's needs, especially when there are language barriers. However, the Polkey reduction shows that even a procedurally unfair dismissal does not always lead to full compensation if the outcome would have been the same with a fair process. For employees, this means that challenging procedural flaws is important, but they should also be prepared for the possibility that the tribunal may limit their compensation if the employer can show the dismissal was inevitable.
Similar cases
Architectural assistant dismissed without consultation: procedural unfairness but no compensation
An architectural assistant with six years' service was made redundant without any prior consultation. The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair but awarded no compensation because redundancy was inevitable.
Café worker automatically unfairly dismissed for asserting right to written contract
A café worker with only six months' service was automatically unfairly dismissed after asking for a written contract. The tribunal awarded over £2,000 including injury to feelings for age discrimination.
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.
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.