Automatic Unfair Dismissal

Even if you’ve acted reasonably, some reasons for dismissal get classed as automatically unfair dismissal, and there are several grounds for which an employee can claim unfair dismissal discrimination. The areas under which these claims get made include:

• Automatic unfair dismissal whistleblowing.
• Acting as an employee or a trade union representative.
• Dismissal relating to a trade union representative.
• Pay and working hours, including the Working Time Regulations, annual leave and the National Minimum Wage.
• Acting as an occupational pension scheme trustee.

Pregnancy extends to all reasons relating to maternity/paternity leave, parental and adoption leave, and time off for dependants.

Compulsory retirement on the grounds of age is also automatically unfair dismissal unless you can objectively justify it – but this could be challenged at an Employment Tribunal. All the above are valid reasons for declaring automatic unfair dismissal.

Should an Employment Tribunal determine that the claim made against you is automatically unfair dismissal, you cannot defend the claim. Whether you acted reasonably won’t matter; if the claim is substantiated, you will most likely lose the case.

They may expect either/or:

• Reinstatement after unfair dismissal.
• Automatic unfair dismissal compensation.

Automatic unfair dismissal compensation will usually depend on your employee’s:

• Age.
• Gross weekly pay.
• Their length of service.

The amount of compensation an Employment Tribunal can award for automatic unfair dismissal is limited, apart from in cases relating to dismissals for a discriminatory reason or for raising a health and safety complaint.

Automatic unfair dismissal discrimination can be a significant issue for an employer. If you get things wrong and don’t follow the law, it can financially damage your reputation. Below, we can look at the Mrs McMahon v Heron Financial Limited case. The law on automatically unfair dismissal is strict to protect the employee and employer.

Mrs McMahon began her employment as a mortgage protection adviser with Heron Financial Limited in June 2017. Mrs McMahon had signed a contract to work a 40-hour week. Still, she was often required to work more than 48 hours a week, even though she had no signed agreement with Heron Financial Limited opting out of the Working Times Regulations average 48-hour working week.

Mrs McMahon spoke with her management regarding several commission payments that she felt were due in May 2019. Shortly after this, Mrs McMahon was absent from work for a fortnight due to ill health. Upon her return to the workplace, a meeting was held where Mrs McMahon raised her concerns over the stresses caused by the long working weeks, the unpaid commission, and the sick pay she believed she was owed.

Only two days after the meeting was held, Heron Financial Limited dismissed Mrs McMahon with no explanation. Mrs McMahon then raised a grievance that Heron Financial Limited did not uphold, which was dealt with by letter. In response, Mrs McMahon went to the Employment Tribunal (ET). She made numerous claims about her reasons for unfair dismissal because all she did was assert her statutory rights to work under the 48-hour average and not have deductions made to her wages unlawfully.

Heron Financial Limited then argued that her dismissal from the company was due to her poor performance. Mrs McMahon had previously been acknowledged as having one of the highest conversion rates at the company and was even awarded a bottle of champagne. The ET could find no evidence to support the claims of Heron Financial Limited.

The ET held that Mrs McMahon was the victim of automatic unfair dismissal because she had under two years of service with Heron Financial Limited.

Mrs McMahon was awarded £23,127 in automatic unfair dismissal compensation. £19,552 for unfair dismissal, £2,736 for the unlawful deduction of her wages, £587 for unpaid sick pay and commission, and £252 for wrongful dismissal.