Miss J K Dabb v Royal Mail Group Limited FINAL HEARING — 2021

Miss J K Dabb was employed by Royal Mail Group Limited from 10 May 2008 until her dismissal on 28 August 2020 under the respondent’s Attendance Policy. The tribunal held that the reason for dismissal was some other substantial reason, namely unsatisfactory attendance, and that the case was to be assessed under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the band of reasonable responses test. The judge also noted the Polkey issue in the event that the claim had succeeded on procedure, but that question did not arise once liability was decided against the claimant.

The tribunal found that the respondent operated a three-stage attendance process of AR1, AR2 and Consideration of Dismissal under a policy made pursuant to a collective agreement with the CWU. The claimant had previously reached a CoD stage in September 2018 and was given another chance. She then had further absences in 2019, leading to an AR1 in July 2019 and an AR2 in November 2019. After a prolonged absence from 10 February 2020 to 9 April 2020, which the tribunal recorded as being linked to alcohol problems and hospital treatment, the respondent moved to CoD again and dismissed her after the 28 May 2020 meeting.

In assessing fairness, the tribunal accepted that there were imperfections in the decision-making process, including that the dismissal letter referred to the claimant’s full absence history and mentioned five unauthorised absences from early 2018, which were not relevant to the sickness absence case. However, the tribunal found that these points did not make the dismissal unfair because the main basis of decision was the respondent’s view that the claimant was likely to have further sickness absence in the future, especially given her history and the fact that she had already been given a previous second chance. The tribunal also rejected the submission that the respondent was required to treat her alcohol-related absence differently by reason of its alcohol and drugs guide, which it held did not alter the attendance policy outcome.

The tribunal concluded that it was reasonable for Mr Webb and Mr Trunks to rely on the claimant’s absence history, the earlier CoD outcome, and their assessment that further attendance problems were likely, even though the tribunal said it was not itself saying that view was necessarily correct. The unfair dismissal claim therefore failed in full, and no compensation or other remedy was awarded.