Night manager with 17 years' service unfairly dismissed for WhatsApp comments after raising pay concerns
A night manager who raised concerns about pay and holiday pay was unfairly dismissed after posting derogatory comments in a WhatsApp group. The tribunal found the real reason was her assertion of statutory rights.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #long-service
- #clean-disciplinary-record
- #whatsapp-group-chat
- #acas-approach
- #inadequate-investigation
- #predetermined-outcome
- #contributory-conduct
Key facts
- The claimant worked for the respondent for 17 years as Night Manager with a clean disciplinary record.
- The claimant and colleagues raised concerns about pay, holiday pay, and lack of itemised payslips, and approached ACAS in December 2020.
- Mr Hobson, the managing director, became aware of WhatsApp group messages containing derogatory comments about him and arranged for monitoring without informing staff.
- The claimant was dismissed for serious misconduct based on three WhatsApp messages, but the tribunal found the principal reason was her assertion of statutory rights.
- The tribunal found the investigation was inadequate and the dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses.
- The claimant's actions contributed to her dismissal, leading to a 25% reduction in any compensation.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started working for the respondent as Night Manager.
-
First lockdown
Nightclubs closed due to COVID-19 pandemic. Claimant initially continued gardening duties but stopped after police intervention.
-
Annual leave request
Mr Hobson sent a letter requesting staff to take all unused annual leave before end of furlough scheme.
-
Meeting about annual leave
Claimant attended meeting where Mr Hobson said staff who did not comply would be 'first out the door'.
-
First pay query
Claimant queried her holiday payment; Mr Hobson acknowledged conflicting guidance.
-
ACAS early conciliation commenced
Claimant and colleagues approached ACAS about pay and holiday issues.
-
First WhatsApp comment
Claimant posted: 'Just keep emailing, it’s all evidence of him being a cunt'.
-
Second WhatsApp comment
Claimant posted: 'He can suck my balls too!'.
-
Monitoring of WhatsApp groups began
Mr Hobson met with Mr Twigg and Ms Staniforth, who agreed to monitor the WhatsApp group and forward messages.
-
Third WhatsApp comment
Claimant posted: 'Why are the two fuck stains still in this chat?' referring to Mr Twigg and Ms Staniforth.
-
Apology email
Claimant emailed Mr Hobson apologising for calling him names.
-
Written representations to disciplinary hearing
Claimant sent a detailed response raising statutory rights issues and providing evidence of others' misconduct.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed for serious misconduct with notice.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal conducted by Alexandra Gardner; outcome upheld dismissal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the real reason for the claimant's dismissal was her complaints about pay and holiday pay (automatic unfair dismissal) or her WhatsApp messages (misconduct). It also considered whether the investigation and dismissal were fair.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claim for automatic unfair dismissal under section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, finding that the principal reason for dismissal was the claimant's assertion of statutory rights (pay, holiday pay, and itemised payslips).
Even if the reason had been misconduct, the tribunal found the dismissal was unfair because the investigation was inadequate and the decision was outside the range of reasonable responses.
Compensation will be reduced by 25% due to the claimant's contributory conduct.
Lessons & takeaways
- Long-serving employees with a clean record are entitled to a thorough investigation before dismissal for misconduct.
- Employers should not treat complaints about pay or statutory rights as a reason to dismiss — that can be automatically unfair.
- WhatsApp group messages may be considered misconduct, but the context and the employer's own conduct (e.g., monitoring without consent) matter.
- If an employee raises statutory rights issues, employers must ensure those are not the real reason for any subsequent disciplinary action.
A case of timing and motive
This case shows how the timing of a dismissal can reveal the real reason behind it. The claimant, a night manager with 17 years' service and a clean record, had raised concerns about pay, holiday pay, and missing payslips. She and colleagues approached ACAS in December 2020. Shortly after, the managing director discovered a WhatsApp group where staff made derogatory comments about him. He arranged for monitoring without telling anyone.
The claimant was dismissed for three WhatsApp messages. But the tribunal found the investigation was inadequate — for example, the employer did not properly consider that other staff had made similar comments but were not dismissed. The tribunal concluded that the principal reason for dismissal was her assertion of statutory rights, making it automatically unfair.
What the employer could have done differently
Even if the employer genuinely believed the WhatsApp messages were misconduct, the process was flawed. The investigation was superficial and the outcome seemed predetermined. A fair process would have involved a proper comparison with how other staff were treated, and consideration of the claimant's long service and clean record. The employer also failed to recognise that the claimant's complaints about pay were protected acts.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that employees who raise concerns about their statutory rights (such as pay, holiday pay, or payslips) are protected from dismissal for doing so. Employers must be careful not to let those complaints colour their view of subsequent misconduct. A fair investigation and consistent treatment are essential, especially for long-serving employees.
Similar cases
Train driver with 18 years' service unfairly dismissed for boarding after dispatch
A train driver who pulled an emergency lever to board a moving train was unfairly dismissed, but his compensation was cut by 75% for contributory fault.
11 years' service, clean record: misconduct dismissal upheld despite disability
A tribunal dismissed all claims from a former employee with 11 years' service and a clean disciplinary record, finding his misconduct dismissal fair and not discriminatory.
Mailman with 32 years' service unfairly dismissed over duplicate barcode incident
A mailman with 32 years of unblemished service was unfairly dismissed by Royal Mail after a customer complaint about a duplicate barcode. The tribunal found the investigation and disciplinary process flawed, and reduced compensation by 20% for his own conduct.
Security officer with 17 years' service dismissed for refusing hand sanitiser checks: unfair but heavily reduced award
A security officer who refused to carry out hand sanitiser checks was unfairly dismissed due to a flawed investigation, but his 75% contribution and a 90% Polkey reduction meant he received only £5,281.