Sales assistant dismissed after complaining about 14-day working: automatic unfair dismissal
A sales assistant who was dismissed during her probation after complaining about working 14 consecutive days has won her unfair dismissal claim. The Employment Appeal Tribunal found the real reason was her assertion of a statutory right under the Working Time Regulations.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant started work as a sales assistant on 29 June 2018.
- On 20 July 2018 she complained about being required to work 14 consecutive days.
- On 27 July 2018 she raised concerns about working hours and was told by ACAS it might be a breach of the Working Time Regulations.
- She was dismissed on 10 August 2018 during her probationary period.
- The Employment Appeal Tribunal later substituted a finding of unfair dismissal under section 104 ERA.
- The remedy hearing awarded £16,717.54 including a 25% ACAS uplift.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working as a sales assistant for De Sede UK Ltd at Harrods.
-
Consulted about covering manager's holiday
Claimant was asked to work from 28 July to 7 August to cover for manager Damien Breitner.
-
First complaint about 14-day working
Claimant told Mr Breitner she was unhappy about working 14 days in a row and felt treated like a slave.
-
Offer to swap days declined
Mr Breitner offered to swap days to break up the period, but claimant declined.
-
Team meeting and escalation
Claimant became upset, spoke to a Harrods manager, and contacted ACAS about Working Time Regulations.
-
Dismissal meeting
Mr Breitner told claimant her employment was terminated during probation; she was paid notice until 17 August.
-
Employment ended
Claimant's garden leave ended.
-
Claim presented
Claimant lodged claims of automatic unfair dismissal under sections 103A and 104 ERA.
-
Substantive hearing day 1
Employment Tribunal heard evidence and submissions.
-
Substantive hearing day 2
Tribunal concluded hearing and reserved judgment.
-
Judgment issued
Employment Judge Adkin dismissed both claims.
-
EAT decision
Employment Appeal Tribunal substituted a finding of unfair dismissal under section 104 ERA.
-
Remedy hearing
Employment Judge Khan awarded £16,717.54 including ACAS uplift.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal was automatically unfair because she had asserted a statutory right under the Working Time Regulations (section 104 ERA) or made protected disclosures (section 103A ERA).
The outcome
The Employment Appeal Tribunal found that the sales assistant was automatically unfairly dismissed under section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The key reason was that her complaint about working 14 consecutive days without a break was an assertion of her statutory right under the Working Time Regulations, and this was the principal reason for her dismissal.
Compensation awarded:
- Compensatory award: £12,974.03
- ACAS uplift (25%): included in total
- Total: £16,717.54
Lessons & takeaways
- Asserting a statutory right, such as the right to rest breaks under the Working Time Regulations, can protect you from dismissal even during a probationary period.
- Dismissal for raising a working time complaint in good faith is automatically unfair, regardless of how long you have been employed.
- If an employer dismisses shortly after you raise a statutory right issue, the timing can be strong evidence that the complaint was the real reason.
- Representing yourself at tribunal is possible but complex; the EAT overturned the original decision, showing the importance of legal arguments on appeal.
What this case shows in practice
This case demonstrates that employees who assert their statutory rights — such as the right to rest breaks under the Working Time Regulations — are protected from dismissal, even during a probationary period. The sales assistant had only been working for De Sede UK Limited for about six weeks when she complained about being required to work 14 consecutive days. Her manager offered to swap days to break up the period, but she declined and escalated her concerns to ACAS. She was dismissed shortly afterwards, during her probation.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal found that the real reason for her dismissal was her complaint about working hours, not any performance or conduct issue. This made the dismissal automatically unfair under section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
What the employer could have done differently
De Sede UK Limited could have avoided liability by recognising that the claimant's complaint was a protected assertion of a statutory right. Instead of dismissing her, they should have addressed her concerns about working hours and ensured compliance with the Working Time Regulations. Even if they believed the complaint was unfounded, dismissing an employee for raising it in good faith is unlawful.
The employer's failure to engage with the claimant's statutory rights claim, and the timing of the dismissal, were key factors in the EAT's decision.
Why this result matters
This case reinforces that the right to assert statutory rights under section 104 ERA applies regardless of length of service. It also shows that tribunals will look closely at the timing of a dismissal following a complaint about working conditions. For employees, it is a reminder that raising concerns about working time breaches can be a protected act, even if the employer offers an alternative arrangement. For employers, it highlights the importance of taking such complaints seriously and not treating them as a reason to end employment.
Similar cases
Managing director dismissed by email: £25,000 for wrongful dismissal but protected disclosure claim fails
A managing director with a six-month notice period was dismissed by email after raising concerns about unpaid expenses and pension contributions. The tribunal awarded £25,000 for wrongful dismissal but rejected his protected disclosure claim.
Electrician dismissed after raising asbestos concerns: whistleblowing and wrongful dismissal claim succeeds
An electrician who raised asbestos safety concerns was dismissed for alleged expense fraud. The tribunal found the dismissal was tainted by whistleblowing and awarded nearly £20,000.
Registered Nurse lost constructive dismissal claim over protected disclosure and discrimination
A tribunal dismissed all claims by a dementia ward nurse who resigned after suspension, finding no link between his protected disclosure and the employer's actions.
Trainee car salesman loses whistleblowing claim over father's email to CEO
A trainee car sales executive with 2.5 months' service failed to prove he made a protected disclosure when his father sent an email to the CEO alleging fraud. The tribunal found the email was not a disclosure by the claimant and was not in the public interest.