Technician loses claim for £1,000 signing-on bonus after giving one week's notice instead of one month
A technician who resigned after four months with only one week's notice has had his claim for an unpaid £1,000 signing-on bonus dismissed. The tribunal found that his contract allowed the employer to withhold the bonus if he did not work the required notice period.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #signing-on-bonus
- #advertisement-error
- #contractual-notice
- #non-attendance
- #short-service
Key facts
- The claimant started work as a technician on 28 March 2022.
- The advertisement offered a £1,000 signing-on bonus after 3 months, but the respondent said this was an error and should have been 6 months.
- The claimant resigned on 29 July 2022 giving one week's notice, but his contract required one month's notice.
- The claimant did not attend the hearing and did not provide a witness statement or evidence.
- The tribunal dismissed the claim because the contract allowed the respondent to withhold bonus if notice was not worked.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced employment as a technician with Heaton Park Garage Ltd.
-
Resignation
Claimant resigned giving one week's notice, with last working day on 5 August 2022.
-
Last day of work
Claimant's final day of employment.
-
Strike out warning
Tribunal gave claimant opportunity to show why unfair dismissal claim should not be struck out for lack of 2 years' service.
-
Unfair dismissal struck out
Employment Judge McDonald struck out the unfair dismissal claim.
-
Hearing for wages claim
Hearing by video for unlawful deduction claim; claimant did not attend.
-
Judgment sent
Judgment dismissing the wages claim was sent to parties.
The legal issue
Whether the employer unlawfully deducted wages by withholding a £1,000 signing-on bonus, given that the advertisement said the bonus was payable after three months but the contract required one month's notice and allowed the bonus to be withheld if notice was not worked properly.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim for unlawful deduction of wages.
The key reason was that the technician's contract contained a clause allowing the employer to withhold a bonus if the employee unreasonably failed to work their notice period. The technician gave only one week's notice instead of the contractual one month, so the employer was entitled to withhold the bonus.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Check your contract carefully: if it requires a minimum notice period, failing to give that notice could affect your entitlement to bonuses or commission.
- If you see a discrepancy between an advertisement and your contract, clarify it in writing before accepting the job.
- Attend all tribunal hearings and provide evidence if you want to pursue a claim; non-attendance can lead to the claim being dismissed.
- Short-service employees (under two years) cannot claim unfair dismissal, but can still bring claims for unlawful deduction of wages or breach of contract.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates how contractual terms can override promises made in job advertisements. The technician accepted a role based on an advertisement offering a £1,000 signing-on bonus after three months. However, his employment contract contained a clause that allowed the employer to withhold the bonus if the employee did not work the required notice period. When he resigned after four months giving only one week's notice instead of the contractual one month, the employer withheld the bonus.
The tribunal did not need to decide whether the advertisement was binding because the contract's notice clause was clear. This highlights the importance of reading and understanding your contract before starting a job, especially if there are discrepancies with what was advertised.
What the employer did right
Heaton Park Garage Ltd had a clear written contract that gave them discretion to withhold bonuses if notice was not worked. They also had a probationary period of six months, which made the three-month bonus in the advertisement appear to be an error. By relying on the contract rather than the advertisement, they avoided a finding of unlawful deduction.
Why this result matters
For employees, this case is a reminder that contractual terms usually take precedence over earlier promises, especially if those promises were made in error. For employers, it shows the value of having well-drafted contracts that cover bonus entitlements and notice periods. The case also demonstrates that tribunals will not entertain claims where the claimant fails to attend the hearing or provide evidence, as the technician did here.
Similar cases
Race discrimination claim fails after 29 days' service and no evidence
A laundry operative who left work after 29 days and alleged racism had his claims dismissed by the Exeter tribunal after he failed to attend the hearing.
Curtain fitter's holiday pay claim dismissed after failing to attend tribunal hearing
A curtain and blind fitter who claimed unpaid holiday pay and fuel expenses had his case dismissed after he failed to attend the final hearing and provided no evidence of any outstanding sums.
10-day job, failed to comply with tribunal orders: claim dismissed
An assistant accountant who was employed for just 10 days had her unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims thrown out after repeatedly failing to comply with tribunal orders and not attending a hearing.
Former employee ordered to pay £9,992 after failing to attend tribunal hearing
A former employee who failed to attend his own unfair dismissal hearing and ignored tribunal orders has been ordered to pay the Department for Work and Pensions nearly £10,000 in costs.