Claimant v Architecture North
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant's conduct on 25 April 2025 did not amount to gross misconduct. The claimant questioned a request to send what she perceived as a misleading message to a client, and while an argument occurred, no inappropriate language was used. The respondent was not entitled to dismiss without notice, as the conduct did not constitute a fundamental breach of contract warranting summary dismissal.
The tribunal found the claimant had taken 18 days of annual leave in 2024, consistent with her 17.5 days accrued entitlement, leaving no excess to carry over. In 2025, she took 13 days but had only accrued 9 days pro-rata by 25 April 2025. The respondent was therefore entitled to deduct four days from her final salary, making the deduction lawful.
Facts
Ms Carlsen, an Architectural Assistant employed for 11 months, was dismissed on 25 April 2025 for alleged gross misconduct after refusing to send what she believed was a misleading message to a client and subsequently arguing with the Director, Lewis North. She apologised the same day but was dismissed by email at 16:00. She claimed notice pay (arguing for 4 weeks as she had passed probation) and holiday pay (4 days she believed she could roll over from 2024). The respondent argued she resigned verbally, or was dismissed for gross misconduct, and had taken excess holiday.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant did not resign and her conduct did not amount to gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal. She was entitled to 3 weeks' notice pay (not 4, as probation completion was not proven) plus a 15% ACAS uplift for failure to follow disciplinary procedures. The holiday pay claim failed as the claimant had no excess leave from 2024 to roll over and had taken 4 days more than accrued in 2025, which the respondent could lawfully deduct.
Practical note
Even where an employee refuses an instruction and an argument ensues, dismissal for gross misconduct requires the conduct to be a fundamental breach of contract, and a fair disciplinary process must always be followed before dismissal.
Award breakdown
Award equivalent: 3.8 weeks' gross pay
Adjustments
Respondent failed to follow any disciplinary process before dismissing for alleged gross misconduct. Email of 06 May 2025 stated no investigation or disciplinary meeting was necessary. Even though respondent claimed an internal review occurred post-dismissal, there was no written evidence and claimant was not informed or invited to participate.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6025831/2025
- Decision date
- 5 January 2026
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- No
Employment details
- Role
- Architectural Assistant
- Salary band
- £20,000–£25,000
- Service
- 11 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No