If they sideline you first, a misconduct dismissal that follows may not be genuine
“Unfair dismissalA legal claim you can bring if your employer dismissed you without a fair reason or without following a fair process. You normally need two years of continuous employment to qualify, though some dismi... and holiday payThe pay you receive for the paid annual leave you're entitled to under UK law, worth at least 5.6 weeks a year for most workers. It's usually calculated from your normal pay, though the exact method d... claims both succeeded”
What matters here isn't the label your employer puts on your dismissal. It's whether they investigated properly and gave you a real chance to respond first. Skip that, and the dismissal is very likely unfair, whatever they called it.
- Employers who dismiss without a proper investigation are exposed here. If you were never actually told the accusation, or never given the chance to answer it, the dismissal itself is vulnerable to a legal challenge.
- If your employer has let you carry over unpaid holiday for years, especially with anything in writing, that habit may be a real contractual entitlement, one you can still claim after you've left.
- If your role is being dismantled before any formal process starts, don't wait for the dismissal to act. Get advice now, while you can still gather evidence of what's happening and why.
The situation
A UK property manager watched his responsibilities disappear one by one after his employer brought in a new board. He was cut out of meetings, then told to hand back his company car and the building keys. By the time he lost his authority over the accounts, he believed he had effectively already lost his job. He'd worked there for almost 37 years. In March 2024, the company dismissed him for gross misconductBehaviour serious enough that your employer is entitled to dismiss you immediately without notice. Common examples include theft, violence, or serious dishonesty, but what counts depends on your emplo..., with immediate effect.
What the tribunal found
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, failing what's known as the Burchell test: a fair dismissal requires a genuine belief in the misconduct, held on reasonable grounds, following a reasonable investigation. There had been no investigation and no hearing. He found out about the allegations for the first time in the dismissal email itself, with no way to challenge them before the decision or after. That put the company in total breach of the Acas Code of Practice on disciplinary procedures. The judge's finding was blunt: "the respondent simply wanted to get rid of him." Compensation was reduced by a third, to reflect the chance a fair process would still have ended in dismissal.
For the fuller legal test behind this, see our case study on the standard itself.
Ageli v Sabtina Limited. Case 6009382/2024. Watford Employment Tribunal. March 2026.