Claimant v Sorrelle UK Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to one week's statutory notice under s.86 ERA 1996. The respondent dismissed her summarily for issuing a refund three days outside the 14-day returns policy. The tribunal found this did not amount to gross misconduct or conduct undermining trust and confidence. The claimant was attempting to provide good customer service, not acting dishonestly, and had not been made aware that such conduct could lead to dismissal. The respondent breached contract by failing to give notice or pay in lieu.
The parties resolved the issue of holiday pay during the hearing and the claimant withdrew this claim.
The claimant had only seven months' service and did not have the two years' continuous employment required to bring a claim for unfair dismissal under s.108 ERA 1996. She did not assert any automatically unfair reason that would remove the qualifying period. The claim was therefore dismissed.
Facts
The claimant worked as a fashion supervisor for the respondent for seven months. She was dismissed summarily by email on 17 July 2024 for issuing a refund to a customer three days outside the company's 14-day returns policy. The respondent believed it could dismiss without notice during the probationary period. The claimant had never been given or signed a copy of her employment contract. She raised a grievance, brought a tribunal claim for breach of contract, holiday pay, and unfair dismissal.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to one week's statutory notice under s.86 ERA 1996. Issuing a refund three days late did not amount to gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal. The claimant was exercising customer service discretion, had not acted dishonestly, and was unaware such conduct could lead to dismissal. The unfair dismissal claim failed due to lack of qualifying service. Holiday pay was resolved and withdrawn. The respondent was ordered to pay £457.60 gross for breach of contract.
Practical note
Employers cannot rely on probationary periods or contractual clauses to circumvent statutory notice requirements, and minor breaches of policy do not automatically constitute gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal.
Award breakdown
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6018359/2024
- Decision date
- 12 May 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Sorrelle UK Ltd
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Fashion supervisor
- Service
- 7 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No