Procedurally unfair dismissal but no compensation due to Polkey reduction
A former employee was unfairly dismissed by Sharps Bedrooms Limited, but received only £1,502.32 after the tribunal found he would have been dismissed anyway if a fair procedure had been followed.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #unfair-dismissal
- #polkey-reduction
- #race-discrimination-dismissed
- #religion-discrimination-dismissed
- #harassment-dismissed
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by Sharps Bedrooms Limited.
- The claimant was dismissed on 11 June 2020.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair.
- If a fair procedure had been followed, the claimant would have been dismissed on the same date.
- The claims of race and religion discrimination and harassment were dismissed.
Timeline
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed by the respondent.
-
Hearing day 1
First day of the four-day hearing.
-
Hearing day 2
Second day of the hearing.
-
Hearing day 3
Third day of the hearing.
-
Hearing day 4
Final day of the hearing; oral reasons given.
-
Judgment sent
Written judgment sent to parties.
-
Reconsideration application
Claimant applied for reconsideration.
-
Reconsideration refused
Employment Judge Matthews refused the application.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employee was unfairly dismissed for conduct, and if so, whether compensation should be reduced because dismissal was inevitable even with a fair process.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claim of unfair dismissal, but found that the employee would have been dismissed on the same date even if a fair procedure had been followed. This resulted in a 100% Polkey reduction, meaning no compensation for the dismissal itself.
Compensation awarded:
- Financial losses: £1,211.55
- Interest: £290.77
- Total: £1,502.32
The claims of race and religion discrimination and harassment were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Even if a dismissal is procedurally unfair, compensation can be reduced to zero if the employer can show dismissal was inevitable.
- A Polkey reduction can apply even when the employer's procedure was flawed, as long as a fair process would have reached the same outcome.
- Discrimination and harassment claims require evidence of a protected characteristic being a cause of treatment; mere allegations are not enough.
- Representing yourself in a tribunal is possible, but legal advice can help navigate complex issues like Polkey reductions.
A procedural failing that made no difference
This case illustrates a common outcome in unfair dismissal claims: the employer got the procedure wrong, but the employee still lost out because the result would have been the same. The former employee of Sharps Bedrooms Limited was dismissed for conduct on 11 June 2020. The tribunal found the process was unfair, but applied a 100% Polkey reduction because a fair procedure would have led to dismissal on the same date.
What the employer could have done differently
Sharps Bedrooms could have avoided the finding of unfairness by following a proper disciplinary process. However, the tribunal's decision shows that even a flawed process does not always lead to a significant payout if the employer can demonstrate that dismissal was inevitable. The key lesson for employers is to get the process right, but also to gather evidence to show that a fair outcome would have been the same.
Why this matters for similar claims
For employees, this case is a reminder that winning an unfair dismissal claim does not guarantee compensation. The Polkey principle allows tribunals to reduce awards where dismissal would have occurred anyway. Employees should focus on gathering evidence that a fair process could have led to a different outcome, such as a warning or reinstatement. The dismissal of the discrimination and harassment claims also highlights the high bar for proving that treatment was because of a protected characteristic.
Similar cases
Senior bookseller dismissed without notice after 13 years: procedural failings led to unfair dismissal
A senior bookseller with 13 years' service was unfairly dismissed after being summarily dismissed during an investigation meeting. The tribunal awarded £11,471.80, including a 12.5% uplift for failing to follow the ACAS Code.
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.
Unfair dismissal and unpaid notice: a procedural failure that cost £8,000
A former employee was unfairly dismissed and denied proper notice pay and annual leave. The tribunal awarded £8,000 after finding the employer failed to follow a fair process.
Dismissed cleaner wins unfair dismissal claim despite filing late due to depression
A former cleaner was unfairly dismissed by Tame Cleaning & Maintenance Ltd. The tribunal allowed her late claims because severe depression made it not reasonably practicable to file on time.