Mr C McEwan v Brake Bros Limited — 2019

The claimant, an LGV driver, was dismissed after a series of intermittent absences totalling about 67 days over four occasions in a 12-month period. The respondent relied on some other substantial reason, namely the claimant's level of intermittent absence, and alternatively conduct. The tribunal accepted that the respondent dismissed the claimant because of intermittent absence and that this was a potentially fair reason.

The tribunal found that the respondent had an absence policy, that the claimant knew its trigger points, and that he had been taken through staged review meetings with warnings before dismissal. It accepted that the respondent was reasonably entitled to treat the absences as unconnected, to conclude that two later occasions on which the claimant was sent home involved legitimate health and safety concerns, and to attach weight to the impact of driver absence on its delivery operations.

The tribunal considered the claimant's arguments that earlier absences were work-related, that the policy had not been followed, that he had not been supported, and that the dismissal and appeal were predetermined. It found that the respondent's decision-makers carried out personal assessments, that the appeal considered the substance and process of the dismissal, and that the decision to dismiss fell within the band of reasonable responses. The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.