Head housekeeper dismissed while abroad: appeal process found unfair
A head housekeeper was unfairly dismissed after failing to return from Bulgaria on 48 hours' notice. The tribunal found the appeal was not conducted with an open mind, but reduced compensation by 80% for her contribution.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #long-term-absence
- #furlough
- #annual-leave-dispute
- #contributory-conduct
- #appeal-procedural-unfairness
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as Head Housekeeper from 9 October 2017 until dismissal on 25 September 2020.
- She was furloughed from 27 March 2020 and later required to return to work on 48 hours' notice.
- The claimant was abroad in Bulgaria and did not return by the required date, citing family illness.
- She was dismissed for unauthorised absence after failing to provide medical evidence or a clear return date.
- The appeal hearing was conducted by a manager who had earlier expressed a view that the claimant was stalling.
- The tribunal found the dismissal unfair due to the appeal not being conducted with an open mind.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as Head Housekeeper at the Red Lion Hotel.
-
Email about colleague's health
Claimant emailed manager expressing concern about a colleague returning to work with possible COVID-19 symptoms.
-
Warning about emails
Manager warned claimant about creating panic; threatened disciplinary action.
-
Furlough commenced
Claimant placed on furlough due to the pandemic.
-
Holiday direction
Respondent directed claimant to take annual leave during furlough without proper notice under WTR.
-
Return to work notice
Claimant given 48 hours' notice to return to work on 31 August 2020.
-
Claimant requested leave
Claimant asked for annual leave or dependants leave, citing family illness.
-
Request for medical evidence
Manager asked claimant to provide medical evidence within 48 hours.
-
First disciplinary hearing
Claimant did not attend; hearing rescheduled.
-
Second disciplinary hearing
Claimant did not attend; decision to dismiss made.
-
Dismissal effective
Claimant dismissed for unauthorised absence.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal heard by Mr Hughes; dismissed.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal for unauthorised absence was fair, and whether the appeal process cured any procedural defects.
The outcome
The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair because the appeal manager had pre-judged the case. However, the claimant contributed to her dismissal by failing to return to work or provide medical evidence, so compensation was reduced by 80%.
- Basic award: £276.92 reduced by 80% to £55.38
- Compensatory award: £1,929.89 reduced by 80% to £385.98
- Total damages: £3,202.22 (including holiday pay)
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are abroad when asked to return to work, communicate clearly and provide any available evidence of your circumstances.
- Employers must ensure appeal hearings are conducted by someone who has not pre-judged the case, or the dismissal may be unfair.
- Even if a dismissal is unfair, your compensation can be substantially reduced if you contributed to the situation.
A holiday abroad that led to dismissal
This case shows how a breakdown in communication during the pandemic can lead to an unfair dismissal. The head housekeeper, who had three years' service, was furloughed in March 2020. In late August, she was told to return to work in 48 hours — but she was in Bulgaria, caring for a sick family member. She asked for annual leave or dependants' leave, but the employer insisted she return or provide medical evidence.
What went wrong for the employer
The employer dismissed her for unauthorised absence after she failed to provide medical evidence or a return date. The tribunal found the initial decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses. However, the appeal process was flawed: the manager who heard the appeal had already expressed a view that the claimant was 'stalling'. This meant the appeal was not conducted with an open mind, making the dismissal unfair overall.
Why the result matters
The case is a reminder that even a fair initial decision can be undermined by a biased appeal. For employees, it highlights the importance of clear communication when unable to return to work. For employers, it shows that appeal hearings must be genuinely impartial — a pre-judged appeal can turn a fair dismissal into an unfair one. The 80% reduction for contributory conduct also underscores that employees who fail to cooperate may see their compensation significantly cut.
Similar cases
Travel consultant dismissed for second job during furlough: unfair but no compensation
A travel consultant was unfairly dismissed for working a second job without permission while on furlough, but the tribunal awarded nothing due to Polkey and contributory fault reductions.
Dismissed without a disciplinary hearing: procedural unfairness costs employer £9,500
A former employee with two years' service was unfairly dismissed after being suspended and then sacked without any disciplinary hearing. The Cambridge tribunal awarded £9,546.81 in compensation.
Dismissed over a private Facebook post: when does social media cross the line?
A care worker was sacked for gross misconduct after a Facebook comment about a colleague. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair — but reduced compensation by 25% for contributory conduct.
Control room team leader dismissed over hug and anti-Semitism allegations: unfair but compensation slashed
A tribunal found that MTR Elizabeth Line unfairly dismissed a control room team leader of 11 years over a hug and alleged anti-Semitic comments, but reduced compensation by 75% due to his own conduct.