Claimant v Student Loans Company Ltd — 2020

The claimant was employed by the Student Loans Company as a Verifications Operations Advisor from 8 January 2001 until dismissal with notice on 8 January 2019, with an effective date of termination of 1 April 2019. The tribunal found that the respondent operated an attendance management policy with trigger points and staged hearings, and that the claimant had a long history of absences managed under that process from 2017 onward.

After a recorded discussion in March 2017 and a formal attendance hearing in September 2017, the claimant was placed on monitoring. In July 2018, following a final formal attendance hearing, management exercised discretion in relation to one absence and decided to monitor the claimant for a further 12 months rather than dismiss, on the basis that he needed to show a sustained improvement. The tribunal found that the claimant then had further absences in late 2018, including a November absence where discretion was exercised and a December absence linked to hospitalisation.

At the January 2019 final formal attendance hearing, the tribunal found that Ms Munn considered the claimant's absences, the support already provided, the effect on the business, and the guidance on discretion before deciding that attendance remained unacceptable and dismissal was appropriate. On appeal, Mr Law upheld the dismissal after reviewing the documents, the claimant's representations, and the history of prior discretion. The tribunal held that the respondent had shown the reason for dismissal and that it was some other substantial reason, and it rejected the claimant's argument that discretion had to be applied automatically for the December hospitalisation.

Applying section 98(4) ERA 1996 and the range of reasonable responses approach, the tribunal found that the respondent had followed a fair process, gave the claimant opportunities to make representations and be accompanied, obtained occupational health input, and did not act too rigidly under its policy. It concluded that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim. As the claim failed, the tribunal did not go on to consider remedy.