Whistleblowing dismissal and multiple breaches: former employee awarded over £13,000
A former employee who was unfairly dismissed for whistleblowing and subjected to multiple breaches including unpaid holiday pay and unauthorised deductions has been awarded £13,117.36 by an employment tribunal.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by the respondent as an employee.
- The claimant was unfairly dismissed contrary to s104 Employment Rights Act 1996.
- The respondent failed to pay holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations.
- The respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages, with a 25% uplift for not following ACAS Code.
- The respondent failed to provide a written statement of employment particulars.
- The respondent failed to allow the claimant to be accompanied to a grievance meeting.
Timeline
-
First hearing
Employment Judge King heard the case at Cambridge Employment Tribunal. The claimant withdrew several claims. The tribunal found the claimant was an employee and had jurisdiction.
-
Second hearing
Employment Judge King issued the judgment awarding the claimant £13,117.36 in total for unfair dismissal, holiday pay, unauthorised deductions, breach of contract, failure to provide written particulars, and failure to allow accompaniment to a grievance meeting.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employee was unfairly dismissed for whistleblowing, and whether the employer committed various other breaches including unauthorised deductions from wages, failure to pay holiday pay, breach of contract, failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars, and failure to allow the employee to be accompanied at a grievance meeting.
The outcome
The tribunal found in favour of the former employee on all claims.
Key reasons:
- The dismissal was automatically unfair under s104 Employment Rights Act 1996 because the reason was the employee making a protected disclosure.
- The employer failed to pay holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations.
- Unauthorised deductions from wages were made, and the employer unreasonably failed to follow the ACAS Code of Practice, leading to a 25% uplift on that award.
- The employer breached contract by not paying notice pay.
- No written statement of employment particulars was provided.
- The employee was not allowed to be accompanied to a grievance meeting.
Compensation breakdown:
- Unfair dismissal: £4,570.72
- Holiday pay: £1,073.53
- Unauthorised deductions (including 25% uplift): £3,782.38
- Breach of contract (notice pay): £462.73
- Failure to provide written particulars: £2,152.00
- Failure to allow accompaniment to grievance: £1,076.00
- Total: £13,117.36
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are dismissed for raising a genuine health and safety or other protected concern, you may have a claim for automatic unfair dismissal regardless of your length of service.
- Employers must provide a written statement of employment particulars within two months of starting work; failing to do so can result in a penalty of up to four weeks' pay.
- Workers have the right to be accompanied by a colleague or trade union representative at a grievance meeting; denying this can lead to compensation of up to two weeks' pay.
- The ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures applies to all employers; unreasonable failure to follow it can increase compensation by up to 25%.
- Keep records of all communications and pay slips; unauthorised deductions and unpaid holiday pay can be claimed even after employment ends.
A pattern of failures
This case highlights how a single employment relationship can unravel into multiple legal breaches. The former employee, who raised a protected disclosure, was not only unfairly dismissed but also faced a series of other failures by the employer: unpaid holiday pay, unauthorised deductions from wages, no written contract, and being denied the right to have someone accompany them to a grievance meeting. The tribunal found all these claims proved, awarding a total of £13,117.36.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer, Inari Sushi and Grill Limited, did not attend the hearing or contest the claims. Had they done so, they might have mitigated the outcome. For example, providing a written statement of employment particulars is a basic legal requirement that costs nothing. Similarly, allowing a colleague to accompany the employee to a grievance meeting is a straightforward step that would have avoided a separate award. The 25% uplift on the unauthorised deductions award was applied because the employer unreasonably failed to follow the ACAS Code of Practice — a clear signal that ignoring procedural fairness can be costly.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that employment rights are not optional. Even small businesses must comply with core obligations: written particulars, holiday pay, proper wage deductions, and the right to accompaniment. For employees, it shows that raising a genuine concern (whistleblowing) is a protected act that can lead to an automatic unfair dismissal claim with no length-of-service requirement. The multiple awards also demonstrate that tribunals will compensate for each separate breach, not just the dismissal itself.
Similar cases
Redundancy dismissal leads to £17,570 award for multiple employment rights breaches
A former employee of Duchy Farm Kennels Ltd was awarded £17,570.97 after being unfairly dismissed by redundancy, with the tribunal also finding unauthorised wage deductions, unpaid holiday pay, and failure to provide written particulars.
Remote support technician wins employee status and £15,758 after dismissal
A tribunal found that a remote support technician was an employee, not self-employed, and awarded £15,758.74 for unfair dismissal, including a 25% uplift for failure 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 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.