Dismissed for childcare absences: reinstatement offer saved employer from automatic unfair dismissal claim
A retail sales advisor was dismissed during probation for eight absences, five of which were for childcare. The tribunal found no automatic unfair dismissal because the employer offered reinstatement two days later, which the claimant rejected.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #maternity-and-pregnancy-rights
- #sex-discrimination
- #unfair-dismissal
- #probationary-period
- #childcare-absence
- #reinstatement-offer
Key facts
- The claimant was dismissed on 5 April 2022 during her probationary period due to eight absences, five of which were for childcare.
- The respondent's managers failed to correctly record childcare absences, leading to the dismissal based on sickness absence.
- The respondent offered reinstatement on 7 April 2022, which the claimant rejected.
- The tribunal found that the offer of reinstatement revived the contract, so there was no dismissal for the purposes of the automatic unfair dismissal claim.
- The respondent's absence mapping procedure allowed for childcare contingencies, so there was no indirect discrimination.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced employment as a Retail Sales Advisor on a four-day week, subject to a six-month probationary period.
-
First childcare absence
Claimant was absent for childcare.
-
Childcare absence
Claimant was absent for childcare.
-
Illness absence
Claimant was absent due to illness.
-
Childcare absence
Claimant was absent for childcare.
-
Childcare absence
Claimant was absent for childcare.
-
Illness absence
Claimant was absent due to illness.
-
Illness absence
Claimant was absent due to illness.
-
Childcare absence
Claimant was absent for childcare.
-
Probation review meeting and dismissal
Michelle Taylor held a Probation Review Meeting and dismissed the claimant due to eight absences, only one recorded as childcare.
-
Claimant emailed HR
Claimant questioned the dismissal, stating she had a right to time off for childcare as a single parent.
-
Reinstatement offer and rejection
HR offered reinstatement, rescinding the dismissal. Claimant rejected the offer, stating she had been unfairly treated.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed for taking time off for dependents (childcare) and whether the employer's absence recording system indirectly discriminated against single mothers.
The outcome
The tribunal found in favour of the employer, Eurochange Limited, on all claims.
- The automatic unfair dismissal claim failed because the employer's offer of reinstatement on 7 April 2022 revived the contract, so there was no dismissal in law.
- The indirect sex discrimination claim failed because the employer's absence mapping procedure did allow for childcare contingencies, and the claimant could not show that single mothers were put at a particular disadvantage.
- No compensation was awarded as the claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If your employer offers to reinstate you after a dismissal, accepting it may preserve your job but could also extinguish any claim for unfair dismissal.
- Employers must record childcare absences correctly; failing to do so can lead to unfair treatment, but a prompt offer of reinstatement may limit liability.
- Employees with less than two years' service have limited unfair dismissal rights, but automatic unfair dismissal for taking time off for dependents is a day-one right.
- Indirect discrimination claims require evidence that a policy puts a protected group at a particular disadvantage; a policy that allows for childcare contingencies may not be discriminatory.
When a reinstatement offer can save a dismissal case
This case illustrates how a swift offer of reinstatement can change the legal outcome of a dismissal. The claimant, a retail sales advisor with just four months' service, was dismissed during her probation period after eight absences. Five of those absences were for childcare, but her managers had incorrectly recorded them as sickness. When the claimant challenged the decision, HR investigated and offered to reinstate her two days later. She refused, feeling she had been unfairly treated.
The tribunal found that the offer of reinstatement revived the employment contract, meaning there was no dismissal in law. As a result, the claim for automatic unfair dismissal for taking time off for dependents could not succeed. The case highlights that while employers can make mistakes in handling absences, a genuine and prompt offer to put things right may prevent a successful tribunal claim.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer's managers failed to properly record childcare absences, leading to a dismissal based on incomplete information. A better system for recording the reason for absence, and proper training for managers, could have avoided the situation entirely. However, the employer's HR team acted quickly once the error was identified, which ultimately protected the company from liability.
Why this matters for similar claims
For employees, this case is a reminder that rejecting a reinstatement offer can close the door to an unfair dismissal claim. For employers, it shows that a prompt and genuine offer of reinstatement can be a powerful defence, even when the original dismissal was flawed. The indirect discrimination claim also failed because the employer's absence policy did allow for childcare contingencies, and the claimant could not show that single mothers were particularly disadvantaged.
Similar cases
Pregnancy discrimination claim struck out: the importance of early conciliation
A former employee's pregnancy discrimination and unfair dismissal claim was thrown out because she lodged her claim without an Acas early conciliation certificate. The tribunal ruled it had no jurisdiction.
Dismissed during pregnancy: employer failed to follow any procedure
A former employee with 17 months' service won nearly £20,000 after being unfairly dismissed and discriminated against due to pregnancy. The employer failed to follow any statutory procedure.
Former employee's claim dismissed after failing to attend final hearing
A former employee who did not attend her final hearing and failed to comply with directions had her claim dismissed by the tribunal.
Whistleblowing claim: repeated amendment applications not unreasonable enough for costs
A former chartered accountant who made multiple applications to amend her whistleblowing and sex discrimination claims avoided a costs order, even though most amendments were refused. The tribunal said her conduct was not unreasonable or vexatious.