Driver installer with 4 months' service allowed to pursue automatically unfair dismissal claim
A driver installer who was dismissed after challenging his pay rate has been allowed to pursue an automatically unfair dismissal claim, despite having less than two years' service.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #automatically-unfair-dismissal
- #assertion-of-statutory-right
- #unauthorised-deduction-of-wages
- #overtime-pay
- #litigant-in-person
- #reconsideration
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Driver Installer from 9 August 2022 until dismissal on 5 December 2022.
- The claimant had less than two years' service at the time of dismissal.
- The claimant's claim form included a grievance letter asserting he was dismissed for challenging his pay rate.
- Employment Judge Tynan struck out the unfair dismissal claim due to insufficient service.
- Employment Judge Alliott revoked the strike-out and granted permission to amend to include automatically unfair dismissal and overtime claims.
- Other claims of unfairness, discrimination, and victimisation were struck out.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as a Driver Installer with the respondent.
-
First disputed pay date
Claimant worked installing lined and insulated buildings and was paid £120 per day instead of the alleged agreed £150.
-
Second disputed pay date
Claimant again worked and was paid £120 per day instead of £150.
-
Grievance letter
Claimant submitted a grievance to the respondent complaining about the pay rate and asserting that this was the reason for his dismissal.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed with effect from this date.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented his claim to the Employment Tribunal.
-
Initial strike-out judgment
Employment Judge Tynan struck out the unfair dismissal claim due to lack of two years' service.
-
Preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Moore ordered a reconsideration hearing and identified potential automatically unfair dismissal claim.
-
Reconsideration hearing
Employment Judge Alliott revoked the strike-out, granted amendments, and struck out other claims.
-
Judgment sent
The reconsideration judgment was issued.
The legal issue
Whether the claimant's unfair dismissal claim should be reinstated because he had alleged he was dismissed for asserting a statutory right (the right not to suffer an unlawful deduction of wages), which is automatically unfair regardless of length of service.
The outcome
The tribunal decided to revoke the earlier strike-out of the unfair dismissal claim and allowed the claimant to amend his claim to include automatically unfair dismissal and unpaid overtime claims.
Key reasons:
- The claimant's grievance letter, incorporated into his claim, stated he believed he was dismissed for challenging his pay rate.
- This raised an arguable case of automatically unfair dismissal under section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which does not require two years' service.
- Other claims of unfairness, discrimination, and victimisation were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Compensation: To be determined at a final hearing.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees with less than two years' service can still bring an automatically unfair dismissal claim if they were dismissed for asserting a statutory right, such as challenging unlawful wage deductions.
- A grievance letter attached to a claim form can be treated as particulars of claim, so it is important to clearly state the reason for dismissal.
- Litigants in person should be given leeway to amend claims when the facts suggest a potential legal claim they were unaware of.
- Employers should ensure they do not dismiss an employee for raising a genuine complaint about pay, as this can lead to an automatically unfair dismissal claim.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights the importance of the legal protections available to employees who assert their statutory rights, even if they have only been employed for a short period. The claimant, a driver installer, was dismissed after just four months when he challenged his pay rate. Initially, his unfair dismissal claim was struck out because he had less than two years' service, the usual qualifying period. However, the tribunal later recognised that his grievance letter, which he had attached to his claim form, contained facts suggesting he was dismissed for asserting a statutory right — namely, the right not to suffer an unlawful deduction of wages. This type of dismissal is automatically unfair and does not require any minimum service.
What the losing side could have done differently
The respondent, A&J Sectional Buildings Ltd, could have avoided this situation by properly addressing the claimant's pay grievance and ensuring that any dismissal was not linked to his complaint. If the dismissal was genuinely for a different reason, the employer should have documented that clearly. Additionally, the respondent's solicitor might have spotted the potential automatically unfair claim earlier and sought to have it struck out on its merits rather than relying solely on the service requirement.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This decision serves as a reminder that employment tribunals will look at the substance of a claim, not just its label. Employees who believe they were dismissed for raising a legitimate concern about their pay or other statutory rights should consider whether they have a claim for automatically unfair dismissal, regardless of their length of service. For employers, it underscores the risk of dismissing an employee who has recently complained about wages, as such a dismissal can be challenged even if the employee has been with the company for only a few months.
Similar cases
Administrative error leads to revocation of dismissal judgment: tribunal allows claim to proceed
A former employee who responded to a tribunal direction within time but used the wrong case number had her unfair dismissal claim reinstated after the tribunal revoked its original judgment.
Personal service company worker wins right to argue employee status at final hearing
A tribunal has reversed its earlier decision to strike out unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims brought by a worker supplied via his personal service company, allowing the status issue to be heard at a full hearing.
Name error on claim form: tribunal accepts late claim after rule change
A railway employee's unfair dismissal claim was initially rejected because the respondent name on the claim form didn't match the early conciliation certificate. The tribunal granted reconsideration, accepting the claim from the date the error was explained.
Hotel night worker's constructive dismissal claim struck out after delay in resigning
A tribunal struck out a constructive unfair dismissal claim from a night team member who waited 2.5 months after the last alleged breach before resigning, finding he had affirmed the contract.