Apprentice dismissed after complaining about rest breaks: tribunal upholds dismissal

A short service case with a clear reason

This case shows how tribunals approach claims from employees with very short service. The claimant, a 17-year-old apprentice, had worked for less than three months when she was dismissed during her trial period. Because she did not have two years' service, she could only bring claims for automatic unfair dismissal — that is, dismissal for a reason that is automatically unfair regardless of length of service.

She argued she was dismissed because she complained about not getting rest breaks, which would be an assertion of a statutory right under the Working Time Regulations. Alternatively, she said her complaints amounted to a protected disclosure (whistleblowing). The tribunal had to decide what the real reason for dismissal was.

What the employer could have done differently

The employer, Miss Gemma Boardman trading as House of GB, had legitimate concerns about the claimant's performance and trustworthiness after a stock incident where the claimant took lashes home without permission. However, the timing of the dismissal — just days after the second break complaint — made the claimant suspect the break complaints were the real reason.

The tribunal accepted the employer's evidence that the stock incident was the principal reason, and that the break complaints were not a factor. This was a case where the employer had a clear, documented reason for dismissal that was separate from the protected act. Employers facing similar situations should ensure they can point to specific incidents that caused the dismissal, and avoid any suggestion that the employee's complaints played a part.

Why this result matters

This case is a reminder that tribunals will scrutinise the real reason for dismissal, even in short-service cases. The claimant's lack of service meant she could not bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim, which would have required the employer to show a fair reason and follow a fair process. Here, the employer did not need to follow a full process because of the trial period, but the tribunal still examined the reason carefully.

For employees, this case highlights the importance of having clear evidence that the dismissal was linked to a protected act. For employers, it shows that having a genuine, separate reason for dismissal can defeat claims even when the employee has made complaints shortly before being dismissed.