48 hours unpaid: wage claim succeeds but unfair dismissal fails for lack of service
A former employee who was not paid for 48 hours of work won her unauthorised deductions claim for £460.80, but her unfair dismissal claim was thrown out because she had less than two years' continuous employment.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #unfair-dismissal
- #unauthorised-deductions
- #insufficient-continuous-employment
- #wage-claim
- #48-hours-unpaid
Key facts
- The claimant worked for the respondent but had less than two years' continuous employment.
- The claimant was not paid for 48 hours of work in August 2022.
- The respondent did not attend the hearing.
- The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed due to lack of qualifying service.
- The unauthorised deductions claim succeeded and the respondent was ordered to pay £460.80.
Timeline
-
Unpaid work period
The claimant worked 48 hours in August 2022 for which she received no payment.
-
Hearing and judgment
The Employment Tribunal heard the case and issued a judgment dismissing the unfair dismissal claim but upholding the unauthorised deductions claim.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employee had sufficient continuous employment to bring an unfair dismissal claim (she did not), and whether the employer had made unauthorised deductions from wages (she had).
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim because the employee did not have two years' continuous employment, which is a legal requirement for bringing such a claim.
The tribunal upheld the unauthorised deductions claim and ordered the employer to pay £460.80 for 48 hours of unpaid work in August 2022.
Compensation:
- Unpaid wages: £460.80
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees with less than two years' continuous service generally cannot claim unfair dismissal, unless the dismissal is for an automatically unfair reason.
- Employers must pay for all hours worked; failing to do so can lead to a successful unauthorised deductions claim regardless of the employee's length of service.
- If an employer does not attend the hearing, the tribunal can still proceed and make a judgment based on the evidence before it.
This case shows the limits of employment protection for new starters. The former employee had worked for Gillian Saleem but had not yet built up two years' continuous service. When she was dismissed, she could not bring an unfair dismissal claim — the law requires that minimum service period for most employees.
However, the case also demonstrates that wage claims are different. The employee had worked 48 hours in August 2022 without being paid. The employer did not attend the hearing, and the tribunal found the claim for unauthorised deductions well-founded. It ordered payment of £460.80, representing the gross sum for those hours.
What the employer could have done differently
Had the employer attended or provided a defence, they might have been able to explain the non-payment. But failing to engage meant the tribunal decided on the employee's evidence alone. For any business, keeping accurate records and paying for all work done is essential — even if a worker is new or the relationship has broken down.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that employment rights are not all-or-nothing. While unfair dismissal protection requires two years' service, the right to be paid for work done is fundamental and does not depend on length of employment. Employees who are not paid should consider a claim for unauthorised deductions, which can be brought regardless of service.
Similar cases
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 but 100% Polkey reduction due to workplace closure
A former employee was unfairly dismissed but received only limited compensation because the tribunal found he would have been fairly dismissed a month later when the workplace closed. Total award: £12,419.29.
TUPE transfer failure: employees awarded £25,000 after being left behind
Two employees were unfairly dismissed and awarded £25,000 in damages after their employer failed to transfer them under TUPE regulations. The tribunal also made a protective award of 90 days' pay for failure to consult.
Former employee wins unfair dismissal claim against Asda
A former employee succeeded in her unfair dismissal claim against Asda Stores Ltd, but her age discrimination and harassment complaints were dismissed. She was awarded £27,924.06.