Mr G Homeshaw v Mitie Limited — 2023

The claimant was employed as a Border Readiness Operative and was placed at risk of redundancy when that work ended. The tribunal found that the respondent offered a booth operator role on the same pay, shift pattern, hours and team, and that the claimant had no statutory or contractual entitlement to redundancy pay because of insufficient service and the absence of a contractual redundancy scheme.

The claimant became the sole carer of his young son and was granted authorised unpaid dependants leave from 7 to 21 May 2021. The tribunal found that after 21 May 2021 he did not ask for an extension, did not say how long any further absence would last, and did not engage in live discussions with the respondent about his absence, consultation, or possible alternatives. It accepted that his childcare position was difficult, but found the principal reason for dismissal was unauthorised absence after 21 May 2021 and refusal to engage, not the authorised dependants leave.

On indirect sex discrimination, the tribunal found that the alleged requirements to attend in-person meetings, attend a medical appointment, or attend meetings at short notice were not imposed as PCPs in the way alleged. It found the respondent was open to adjustments, had held a telephone meeting, and would have considered other arrangements if requested. The tribunal found no evidence of group disadvantage to men, no disadvantage to the claimant from the alleged PCPs, and no basis to conclude that a woman in the same position would have been treated more favourably.

For wrongful dismissal, the tribunal found the claimant was absent without authorisation after 21 May 2021, had not complied with absence reporting procedures, and that unauthorised absence was listed as potential gross misconduct. It concluded the respondent was entitled to summarily dismiss him, so the notice pay claim failed.