Shop assistant unfairly dismissed after holiday break: continuity of employment preserved
A shop assistant who took a long holiday after an informal arrangement with his manager was unfairly dismissed for alleged mobile phone use. The tribunal awarded £18,441 after finding the real reason was unknown and the procedure was a sham.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- Mr Singh started work on 7 November 2017 and was dismissed on 1 April 2020.
- He took a 5.5-week holiday in 2019 after an arrangement with his manager to return, which the tribunal found preserved continuity of service.
- The tribunal found the stated reason for dismissal (mobile phone use and chatting) was a pretext; the real reason was unknown but not misconduct.
- The dismissal procedure was unfair: no proper investigation, a very short hearing, and a perfunctory appeal.
- The age discrimination claim was dismissed as there was no evidence linking treatment to age.
- The claimant was awarded £18,441.01 compensation plus a preparation time order of £3,280.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Mr Singh began working for Beauty Base Ltd as a shop assistant.
-
Resigned for holiday
Mr Singh resigned to take a 3.5-week holiday to India, with an arrangement to return.
-
Returned to work
Mr Singh returned after 5.5 weeks (including illness) and resumed his role with the same payroll number.
-
First written warning
Mr Singh received a first written warning for lateness.
-
Final written warning
Mr Singh received a final written warning for lateness.
-
Promoted to supervisor
Sana Mukhtar promoted Mr Singh to supervisor despite the final written warning.
-
Fall at work
Mr Singh fell at work, injuring his arm, and was signed off until 2 March 2020.
-
Return to work
Mr Singh returned to work; the return-to-work form did not mention phone use or chatting.
-
Informal meeting
Sana Mukhtar held an informal meeting with Mr Singh about phone use and chatting; no formal warning given.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Prajakta held a short telephone disciplinary hearing; Mr Singh recorded it with consent.
-
Dismissal
Prajakta wrote to Mr Singh dismissing him for misconduct (phone use and chatting), citing his final written warning.
-
Appeal hearing
Ahmed Jhamaney held a very short telephone appeal; he said only 'OK, cool' and 'Bye'.
-
Appeal dismissed
Ahmed Jhamaney sent a letter dismissing the appeal, wrongly stating that warnings were given at the return-to-work meeting.
-
New employment started
Mr Singh started full-time work with EE at a higher salary, ending his loss.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant had continuous employment (despite a gap for a long holiday) to bring an unfair dismissal claim, whether the dismissal was for a fair reason, and whether he was subjected to age discrimination.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The key reasons were:
- The stated reason (mobile phone use and chatting) was a pretext – the real reason for dismissal was unknown but not misconduct.
- The dismissal procedure was fundamentally unfair: no proper investigation, a very short telephone hearing, and a perfunctory appeal where the appeal officer said only 'OK, cool' and 'Bye'.
- The claimant had continuity of employment because his holiday was taken with an arrangement to return, so he had over 2 years' service and could bring the claim.
- The age discrimination claim was dismissed as there was no evidence linking treatment to age.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £360.00
- Compensatory award: £18,081.01
- Total: £18,441.01
- Plus a preparation time order of £3,280.00
Lessons & takeaways
- Continuity of employment can be preserved even if you resign and return, if there is an agreement to return – keep evidence of any such arrangement.
- A dismissal based on a pretext (where the real reason is hidden) is likely to be unfair, especially if the procedure is a sham.
- Employers must conduct a proper investigation and give employees a fair opportunity to respond before dismissing for misconduct.
- A perfunctory appeal that does not genuinely reconsider the decision will not cure a procedurally unfair dismissal.
- Age discrimination claims need evidence linking treatment to age – being the youngest employee and given menial tasks may not be enough without more.
A holiday arrangement that saved a claim
This case shows how an informal agreement to return after a long holiday can make the difference between having and not having the right to claim unfair dismissal. The claimant, a shop assistant and later supervisor, took a 5.5-week holiday to India in 2019 after his manager agreed he could come back. When he returned, he was rehired with the same payroll number. The tribunal accepted this preserved continuity of service, giving him the necessary two years to bring his claim.
A dismissal built on a pretext
The claimant was dismissed in April 2020 for using his mobile phone and chatting too much with colleagues. But the tribunal found these were not the real reasons. The manager who dismissed him had promoted him only months earlier, and the return-to-work form after a period of sickness absence did not mention any phone issues. The tribunal concluded the real reason was unknown – but it was not misconduct. This made the dismissal unfair, regardless of the procedural failings.
What the employer did wrong
The disciplinary process was deeply flawed. There was no proper investigation, the hearing was a short telephone call, and the appeal was even worse – the appeal officer said only 'OK, cool' and 'Bye'. The tribunal noted that a reasonable employer would not have dismissed in these circumstances. The employer could have avoided the claim by conducting a fair investigation, giving the claimant a proper chance to respond, and ensuring the appeal was genuine.
Why this matters
For employees, this case is a reminder that even a short service (just over two years) can support an unfair dismissal claim if continuity is preserved. For employers, it shows that using a pretext to dismiss, combined with a sham procedure, will almost certainly lead to a finding of unfair dismissal. The compensation of over £18,000, plus a preparation time order, reflects the seriousness of the failings.
Similar cases
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.
Trade promoter with 20 years' service unfairly dismissed but denied compensation over secret commission
The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair, but refused to award any compensation because after-dismissed evidence showed the employee had sought a secret commission from a customer.
Dismissed for using visitor parking permits: a flawed process that cost the council £35,000
A deputy manager with 16 years' service was dismissed for gross misconduct over visitor parking permits. The tribunal found the process unfair and awarded £35,318.56, but rejected her whistleblowing claim.
Meter reader with 16 years' service unfairly dismissed for ill health capability
A meter reader who was dismissed while on long-term sick leave after a motorbike accident has won his unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claim. The tribunal found that Morrison Data Services Ltd failed to obtain an up-to-date occupational health report before deciding to dismiss.