A dismissal often comes as a short meeting, a letter and an instruction not to return. The legal position is rarely that simple. These unfair dismissal case examples show how an Employment Tribunal may look beyond an employer’s stated reason to examine the evidence, the procedure followed and whether the decision was reasonable.
In Northern Ireland, an employee will usually need one year’s continuous service to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim. There are important exceptions. Dismissals connected with matters such as pregnancy, whistleblowing, trade union activity or asserting certain statutory rights may be automatically unfair, meaning the usual qualifying period may not apply. Each case turns on its own facts, so early advice is sensible.
What makes a dismissal unfair?
An employer must generally show a potentially fair reason for dismissal. The recognised reasons include conduct, capability, redundancy, breach of a legal duty, or another substantial reason. That is only the first part of the test.
The employer must also act reasonably in treating that reason as sufficient to dismiss. A fair reason can still lead to an unfair dismissal where the investigation was inadequate, the employee was not given a proper opportunity to respond, warnings were skipped, or dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses open to the employer.
Tribunals do not simply substitute their own view for that of the employer. They consider whether the decision and procedure were fair in the circumstances. The size and resources of the organisation can matter, but a small employer is not excused from basic fairness.
Unfair dismissal case examples
The following examples are illustrative rather than guarantees of an outcome. They reflect common situations in which the detail, paperwork and timing can make a decisive difference.
Dismissal for misconduct after an incomplete investigation
A shop manager is dismissed after an allegation that cash was missing from a till. The employer relies on a colleague’s brief statement but does not review CCTV, check whether other staff accessed the till, or give the manager copies of the evidence before the disciplinary meeting. The manager denies the allegation and asks for the CCTV to be examined. The request is refused.
The employer may have had a potentially fair reason – conduct. However, a Tribunal could find the dismissal unfair if the investigation was not reasonable and the employee did not have a meaningful chance to answer the allegation. The more serious the allegation, the more careful the investigation should usually be.
This does not mean an employer must prove misconduct to the criminal standard. It must have a genuine belief, based on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation. A clear disciplinary policy, written evidence, meeting notes and a genuine right of appeal can all be highly relevant.
Redundancy used to remove one employee
A business says that a drop in orders means one administrator’s role is redundant. Yet the work continues and is shortly divided between two newer employees. The employer selects the longest-serving administrator without explaining the selection pool, applying objective criteria or consulting meaningfully about alternatives.
Redundancy can be a fair reason for dismissal where there is a genuine reduced need for employees to carry out particular work. But a genuine business downturn does not make every redundancy dismissal fair. The Tribunal may scrutinise whether there was a real redundancy situation, whether the affected employee was properly consulted, how the pool and selection criteria were chosen, and whether suitable alternative work was considered.
Employers do not have to preserve every role indefinitely. Equally, calling a dismissal a redundancy will not protect a decision that was really driven by personality conflict, performance concerns or a desire to replace an employee with someone else.
Poor performance without warning or support
An employee is told that her work has not met the required standard and is dismissed at the first formal meeting. She had received positive appraisals previously, was not given measurable targets, and had not been offered training, supervision or a reasonable period to improve.
Capability may justify dismissal, but it will commonly require a fair process. The employee should understand the shortcomings alleged, the standard expected, what support is available and the consequences of failing to improve. In many cases, warnings and review periods will be appropriate before dismissal.
There are exceptions. Where a role is particularly senior, safety-critical or the shortcomings are exceptionally serious, a shorter process may be reasonable. The central question remains whether dismissal was fair in the circumstances, not whether the employer was frustrated with the employee’s performance.
Absence linked to ill health or disability
A warehouse worker has repeated absences because of a diagnosed condition. The employer reaches a trigger point under its absence policy and dismisses him without obtaining up-to-date medical evidence, discussing a phased return or considering changes to duties or working hours.
An employer may be able to dismiss where attendance cannot be sustained and the operational impact is significant. However, it should normally investigate the medical position and consider whether reasonable adjustments are required under disability discrimination law. A mechanical use of an attendance policy can create legal risk.
The employee’s length of absence, prognosis, the effect on colleagues and the availability of adjustments all matter. This type of case may involve both unfair dismissal and discrimination issues, which require careful assessment.
Pregnancy-related absence followed by dismissal
An employee is dismissed during pregnancy after being criticised for pregnancy-related sickness absence and attending antenatal appointments. The employer describes the reason as unreliable attendance, but there is no evidence of concerns before the pregnancy.
Dismissal because of pregnancy, pregnancy-related illness or maternity leave is likely to be treated very seriously. It can be automatically unfair and may also amount to sex discrimination. The employer’s label for the dismissal is not decisive. Emails, meeting notes, absence records and the timing of the decision may reveal the real reason.
An employee in this position should keep copies of correspondence, medical certificates and any notes made immediately after meetings. Do not assume that a lack of long service prevents a claim.
Resignation after serious breach of trust
A sales employee raises concerns that commission payments have been calculated incorrectly. Rather than investigate, the employer publicly accuses him of dishonesty, removes his client accounts and tells colleagues he is leaving because he cannot be trusted. He resigns soon afterwards.
This may raise constructive dismissal. The employee has resigned, but may argue that the employer committed a fundamental breach of contract, leaving no realistic option but to leave. Constructive dismissal claims can be difficult because the breach must be serious and the employee must usually resign in response to it, without waiting so long that they appear to have accepted the situation.
A resignation following ordinary workplace disagreement will not necessarily meet that threshold. Before resigning, it is usually wise to obtain advice, preserve evidence and consider whether a formal grievance may clarify the position.
Evidence and procedure often decide the case
People understandably focus on whether the employer’s decision felt unfair. That matters, but a claim is stronger when the facts can be shown. Keep the dismissal letter, contract, staff handbook, emails, messages, appraisal records, payslips, fit notes and notes of meetings. If a meeting takes place unexpectedly, write down what was said, who attended and when, while it is fresh in your mind.
For employers, consistent records are equally important. A well-founded concern can be undermined by a rushed process or unclear documentation. Investigation, disclosure of the allegations, a fair hearing, a reasoned outcome and an appeal are not empty formalities. They help both sides understand whether a dismissal can be justified.
Do not miss the time limit
Employment Tribunal deadlines are strict. In many unfair dismissal cases, the time limit is three months less one day from the effective date of termination, although the rules can be affected by the Labour Relations Agency early conciliation process. It is unsafe to wait for an internal appeal, grievance outcome or reference from an employer before taking advice.
A dismissal may be legally fair even where it feels harsh, and an apparently straightforward dismissal may be unlawful because of the reason behind it or the way it was handled. If you have been dismissed, or are considering dismissal as an employer, prompt, practical advice can protect your position. JPH Law can help you assess the documents, the procedure and the next sensible step.