Mr A Rodden v Mitie Limited — 2024

The claimant was dismissed after the respondent treated his absence as prolonged unauthorised absence and a failure to follow its absence reporting procedure. The tribunal found that the respondent had established a conduct-related reason for dismissal, based on the claimant not attending his shift on 12 July 2024, not contacting the respondent about that absence, and not responding to later attempts to contact him.

The tribunal preferred Mr Kerr's evidence on the disputed facts. It found that the claimant was scheduled to work on 12, 19 and 20 July, had not provided the respondent with a new email address before dismissal, and was not on annual leave on the date fixed for the disciplinary hearing. It accepted that the disciplinary invitation was sent to the email address held by the respondent and that the claimant was responsible for keeping those details updated.

Applying the conduct dismissal authorities and section 98(4) ERA 1996, the tribunal found that the respondent believed the claimant was guilty of misconduct, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and had carried out a reasonable investigation. Although some employers might not have dismissed, the tribunal held that proceeding in the claimant's absence and deciding to dismiss fell within the band of reasonable responses, so the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.