Claimant v Mitie Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the dismissal was for a conduct-related reason (unauthorised absence and failure to follow absence reporting procedures). The respondent believed the claimant guilty, had reasonable grounds for that belief, conducted a reasonable investigation, and the decision to dismiss fell within the band of reasonable responses. The claimant had failed to attend work from 12 July, failed to report his absence, and failed to respond to multiple contact attempts by the 23 July dismissal date.
Facts
The claimant was a security officer employed since February 2020. After a period of sickness absence and return to work in May 2024, he worked on an ad hoc shift basis. From 12 July 2024 he failed to attend scheduled shifts and did not respond to multiple contact attempts by his manager via phone, WhatsApp and email. The respondent sent an AWOL letter on 18 July and invited him to a disciplinary hearing on 23 July. The claimant did not respond or attend the hearing. He was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct (unauthorised absence of over 6 working days and failure to follow absence reporting procedures).
Decision
The tribunal found the dismissal was fair. The respondent had a genuine belief in the misconduct, reasonable grounds for that belief, and conducted a reasonable investigation including inviting the claimant to a disciplinary hearing. The decision to dismiss fell within the band of reasonable responses for a reasonable employer given the claimant's prolonged unauthorised absence and failure to follow reporting procedures, even considering his length of service.
Practical note
An employer can fairly dismiss an employee for gross misconduct consisting of prolonged unauthorised absence (6+ working days) and failure to follow absence reporting procedures, even when the employee claims not to have received communications, where the employer has used the correct contact details held on their systems and the employee had responsibility for keeping those details updated.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8001846/2024
- Decision date
- 16 April 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Mitie Limited
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Security Officer
- Service
- 4 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No