No Appearance For the v Mr Henry (professional representative) — 2020

The claimant, Mr Andrew Thomas, brought a single claim of unfair dismissal against Real Alloy UK Limited. He did not attend the hearing and asked for a postponement after the tribunal’s communications about a possible venue change. The tribunal refused a postponement under the overriding objective, took account of Rule 47, and decided to hear and determine the case on the evidence available, with the respondent represented by Mr Henry and with evidence from Barbara James, the respondent’s former Human Resources Manager.

The tribunal found that the real reason for dismissal was not the claimant’s absence due to injury, but the respondent’s genuine belief that he had been dishonest about the cause and extent of his hand injury and about his ability to drive and work. It accepted that the claimant had given different accounts of how the injury occurred, that surveillance footage showed him driving and shopping without apparent difficulty, and that he had told occupational health that he could not drive and had limited use of his hand. The tribunal also accepted the respondent was entitled to regard the unsigned GP certificate and the claimant’s explanations as further grounds for concern.

Applying section 98 ERA 1996 and the conduct dismissal authorities it cited, including Burchell and the band of reasonable responses approach, the tribunal held that the investigation was reasonable, that the material before the respondent was sufficient to sustain a belief in misconduct, and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. The dismissal letter recorded that the allegation of failing to report an accident was not upheld, but the tribunal found that the dishonesty findings about sick pay and the injury were enough to justify dismissal. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.