Mr Berry, CWU For the v Miss Roberts, Weightmans LLP — 2020

Miss Sinnott was employed by Royal Mail Group Limited as a postperson from 10 August 2016 until her dismissal on 24 November 2018. The tribunal recorded that her performance, apart from her absence record, was satisfactory and that the respondent did not doubt the genuineness of her absences. The dismissal followed short-term but frequent absences reaching trigger points under the collectively agreed Attendance Policy, at Attendance Review 1, Attendance Review 2, and Consideration of Dismissal.

The claimant argued that the respondent acted unreasonably because it did not discount three absences: 20 May 2017, said to be connected to toothache after an extraction; 7 June 2018, said to be sunstroke suffered while at work; and 17 August 2018, said to relate to an underlying ear condition. She also said there were no informal meetings, the Welcome Back meetings were a tick-box exercise, the review stages were formalities, little or no guidance was given, and no reasonable employer would have dismissed her given the mitigation.

The tribunal accepted that the reason for dismissal was some other substantial reason within section 98(1)(b) ERA 1996 and applied section 98(4) ERA 1996 using the band of reasonable responses approach. It found that mitigation had been considered by both the dismissing and appellate officers, and that unlike Royal Mail Group plc v Smith this was not a case where mitigation was ignored. The tribunal accepted the evidence of Nicola McLelland and Geoff Kyte that the mitigation was considered but was thought insufficient to avoid dismissal.

The tribunal rejected the criticisms of process. It found that the claimant had been given opportunities for informal meetings and guidance but declined to engage, that the notes of the Welcome Back and Attendance Review meetings showed explanation and dialogue rather than a mechanistic process, and that the respondent complied with both the letter and the spirit of the Attendance Policy. Taking account of the respondent's significant size and administrative resources, but also its operational need to maintain attendance levels, the tribunal concluded that dismissal was fair. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed and no remedy was awarded.