Senior Account Manager dismissed for unauthorised Bali holiday: claims of victimisation and whistleblowing fail
A Senior Account Manager who took an unauthorised holiday to Bali was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct. The tribunal rejected her claims of sex discrimination, victimisation, and whistleblowing.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #unauthorised-leave
- #gross-misconduct
- #summary-dismissal
- #protected-disclosure
- #victimisation
- #company-sick-pay
- #expenses-reimbursement
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Senior Account Manager from 17 July 2017 until her dismissal on 15 March 2019.
- The claimant took a holiday to Bali from 12 to 22 October 2018 without prior approval from her manager.
- The claimant was notified before her holiday that taking unauthorised leave would be a disciplinary matter.
- The claimant submitted a grievance on 10 January 2019 alleging sex discrimination.
- The disciplinary hearing proceeded and the claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.
- All claims, including victimisation, whistleblowing, unpaid wages, expenses, and wrongful dismissal, were dismissed.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant began employment as Senior Account Manager.
-
Letter of concern
Claimant received a letter of concern from manager Richard East regarding holiday booking and performance issues.
-
Holiday request submitted
Claimant submitted a holiday request for Bali via the system; manager Thompson declined approval due to short notice and busy period.
-
Unauthorised holiday taken
Claimant departed for Bali despite being told the leave was unauthorised and could lead to disciplinary action.
-
Return to work
Claimant returned to work; later reported feeling unwell and left early.
-
Disciplinary hearing invitation
Claimant received invitation to disciplinary hearing on 25 October; she subsequently went on sick leave.
-
Sick leave starts
Claimant reported unwell and was signed off; respondent notified her that only SSP would be paid per clause 8.5.
-
Grievance submitted
Claimant submitted a formal grievance alleging sex discrimination by Mr Thompson.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Claimant attended disciplinary hearing but left after offering to resign on terms; hearing continued in her absence.
-
Summary dismissal
Claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct (unauthorised absence); escorted from premises.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was dismissed because she made protected disclosures (allegations of sex discrimination) and whether she was victimised for doing so, as well as claims for unpaid sick pay, expenses, and wrongful dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims brought by the claimant.
- The claim for direct sex discrimination was struck out as out of time.
- The claim under section 15 Equality Act 2010 was also out of time.
- The claim for victimisation (section 27) was struck out because the alleged act predated the protected act.
- The whistleblowing claim failed because the disclosure was not in the public interest and the dismissal was for unauthorised absence, not the disclosure.
- The claims for unpaid sick pay, expenses, and wrongful dismissal were dismissed on the merits.
No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Taking unauthorised leave after being explicitly warned it could lead to disciplinary action significantly weakens any subsequent claim of unfair treatment.
- A grievance or protected disclosure made after the employer has already begun disciplinary proceedings is unlikely to be seen as the reason for dismissal if the employer can show a clear, separate reason.
- Claims for discrimination or victimisation must be brought within three months of the alleged act; delays can result in claims being struck out even if there is a later related event.
- Employers can rely on clear policies (e.g., no holiday pay for unauthorised absence) if they apply them consistently and communicate them in advance.
The case in practice
This case shows the risks employees take when they decide to go ahead with a holiday after their employer has refused permission. The claimant, a Senior Account Manager, booked a trip to Bali and was told by her manager that it could not be approved due to short notice and a busy period. She was also warned that taking unauthorised leave would be a disciplinary matter. Despite this, she travelled as planned. When she returned, she was invited to a disciplinary hearing and later summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.
The claimant then raised a grievance alleging sex discrimination and later claimed she had made a protected disclosure (whistleblowing) about that discrimination. She argued that her dismissal was an act of victimisation. However, the tribunal found that the disciplinary process had started before the grievance, and that the employer’s decision to dismiss was based solely on the unauthorised absence.
What the employer did right
Infor (United Kingdom) Limited followed a clear process. It warned the claimant in advance, held a disciplinary hearing (which the claimant left early), and made a decision based on a policy that unauthorised absence amounted to gross misconduct. The tribunal noted that the employer had a genuine belief in the claimant’s misconduct and that the dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that employment protections do not shield an employee from the consequences of clear misconduct. Even if an employee later raises a grievance or alleges discrimination, the employer can still dismiss for a separate, genuine reason. It also highlights the strict time limits for discrimination claims: the claimant’s sex discrimination claims were struck out because they were filed too late, even though she argued they were part of a continuing course of conduct.
For employees, the lesson is clear: unauthorised absence is a high-risk action, and a subsequent grievance will not automatically undo the employer’s right to discipline. For employers, the case shows the importance of clear policies, consistent application, and documented warnings.
Similar cases
Security guard dismissed for sleeping on duty: tribunal rejects discrimination claims
A security guard who was dismissed after being found asleep during his shift at Bloomberg LLP has lost his claims for unfair dismissal and discrimination. The tribunal found the employer acted reasonably and the discrimination claims had no merit.
Consultant gynaecologists dismissed for victimisation: unfair process but no compensation
Two long-serving consultant gynaecologists were unfairly dismissed by Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, but the tribunal awarded no compensation because they would have been dismissed anyway and were wholly at fault.
Care home manager's whistleblowing claim fails as decision-maker unaware of disclosures
A care home manager who claimed he was automatically unfairly dismissed for raising concerns about resident safety lost his case. The tribunal found the decision-maker did not know about the disclosures and dismissed him for genuine belief in gross misconduct.
Area manager dismissed for editing timesheet: procedural failures led to unfair dismissal finding
An area manager was unfairly dismissed after editing a timesheet, but the tribunal found the investigation was flawed and the disciplinary process lacked proper notice. He was awarded £8,026 after reductions for contributory conduct and a Polkey finding.