Claimant v Kidzrus Nursery Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair because dismissing the claimant for being absent without leave on a single occasion and not being contactable on that day was not within the range of reasonable responses which a reasonable employer would make. The respondent failed to carry out a reasonable investigation and insisted on conducting the disciplinary process while the claimant was certified as not fit to attend work due to stress.
Facts
Ms Lindley was a part-time term-time childcare practitioner employed from March 2016 to December 2022. She had been taking a 10-minute break for three years, which was stopped in June 2022. She later requested the break be reinstated due to mental health concerns, which was refused. On 21 October 2022, she failed to attend work due to a childcare emergency (school closure) after her leave request was not formally approved. She was subsequently signed off work due to stress. The respondent conducted a disciplinary process entirely during her sick leave absence and summarily dismissed her on 9 December 2022, shortly after she had resigned giving four weeks' notice.
Decision
The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair. Dismissing the claimant for a single absence without leave was not within the range of reasonable responses a reasonable employer would make. The respondent failed to conduct a reasonable investigation and insisted on completing the entire disciplinary process while the claimant was certified as unfit for work due to stress. The tribunal reduced the awards by 20% for contributory fault (the claimant's decision not to attend work despite not having formal approval) and increased the compensatory award by 10% for the respondent's unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS Code.
Practical note
An employer cannot fairly dismiss an employee for a single day's unauthorised absence, particularly where the dismissal process is conducted entirely while the employee is certified as unfit for work due to stress at work, and where the investigation failed to meet basic standards of reasonableness.
Award breakdown
Adjustments
Claimant decided not to attend work on 21 October 2022 despite knowing she was required to do so and did not return her manager's telephone call that day. However, the tribunal noted she had told her manager in advance she would be absent due to unavoidable childcare issues.
Respondent unreasonably failed to comply with ACAS Code by not carrying out necessary investigations as required and conducting the entire disciplinary process while the claimant was certified as not fit for work due to stress at work.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2404435/2023
- Decision date
- 16 January 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- education
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- in house
Employment details
- Role
- part-time, term-time, level three childcare practitioner
- Service
- 7 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister