Long-term sickness dismissal: employer's decision upheld despite lack of updated medical evidence
An employment tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a long-term sick employee by Plusnet Plc, finding the employer acted reasonably in concluding there was no prospect of a return to work.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was continuously absent from 3 December 2019 to 3 October 2020, totalling 10 months.
- The claimant had a poor sickness absence record and a six-month warning in force when the continuous absence began.
- The claimant failed to attend occupational health appointments and did not respond to emails about the referral.
- The dismissing officer, Mr Wood, concluded there was no trust or confidence that the claimant would maintain acceptable attendance.
- The claimant did not provide any positive proposals for a return to work or engage with the appeal process.
- The tribunal found no evidence that the dismissal was related to race or victimisation for earlier tribunal claims.
Timeline
-
Absence period begins
Claimant absent from November 2018 into January 2019, with brief attendance in between.
-
Further absence
Claimant absent from 18 to 30 May 2019.
-
Six-month warning issued
Claimant issued with a six-month warning under attendance management policy.
-
Continuous absence begins
Claimant starts continuous absence lasting until 3 October 2020.
-
Manager review meeting
Claimant referred to occupational health but did not keep appointments.
-
Occupational health attempts contact
Occupational health tried to phone claimant on 26th, 27th, and 28th May; calls went to voicemail.
-
Email about occupational health
Mr Horner emailed claimant about occupational health referral; claimant did not respond.
-
Resolution meeting (day 1)
First day of Stage 3 resolution meeting with Mr Wood.
-
Resolution meeting (day 2)
Second day of Stage 3 resolution meeting.
-
Dismissal
Claimant dismissed for some other substantial reason due to inability to maintain attendance.
-
Appeal not pursued
Claimant did not attend appeal meeting and did not respond; appeal treated as withdrawn.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal was fair under the Employment Rights Act 1996, whether it amounted to race discrimination, and whether it was victimisation for earlier tribunal claims.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims.
- The dismissal was for a fair reason: 'some other substantial reason' (SOSR) – the employee's inability to maintain regular attendance.
- The employer acted reasonably in treating that as a sufficient reason for dismissal, given the employee's 10-month continuous absence, failure to attend occupational health appointments, and lack of any positive proposals for return.
- The race discrimination claim failed because the employee did not provide evidence that a comparator in similar circumstances was treated differently.
- The victimisation claim also failed; the tribunal found no link between the dismissal and the employee's earlier tribunal claims.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are absent long-term, engage with your employer's occupational health referrals and keep in touch – failure to do so can justify dismissal.
- Employers can dismiss for SOSR based on long-term absence even without an updated medical report, if the employee has not cooperated and there is no realistic prospect of return.
- Bringing a discrimination claim requires evidence of less favourable treatment compared to a real comparator in materially similar circumstances.
- Victimisation claims need a clear causal link between the protected act (e.g., a previous tribunal claim) and the dismissal – mere timing is not enough.
What this case shows
This case illustrates how employment tribunals assess fairness when an employer dismisses a long-term sick employee who has disengaged from the process. The employee had been continuously absent for 10 months and had a poor attendance record, including a six-month warning still in force. Despite the employer's efforts to refer him to occupational health and arrange welfare meetings, he did not attend appointments and failed to respond to emails. The dismissing officer concluded there was no trust that the employee would maintain acceptable attendance in future.
What the employer did right
Plusnet Plc followed its attendance management policy, held multiple meetings, and gave the employee opportunities to provide medical evidence or proposals for return. The tribunal noted that the employee did not suggest any adjustments or a phased return. Although the employer relied on a medical report that was several months old, the tribunal accepted that the employee's lack of cooperation made further evidence futile. The employer also considered alternatives to dismissal but found none viable.
Why the result matters
This decision confirms that employers do not always need the latest medical opinion if the employee has failed to engage. It also reinforces that long-term absence can be a fair reason for dismissal under 'some other substantial reason' where capability is not the sole focus. For employees, the message is clear: staying in touch and cooperating with occupational health is crucial to protecting your position. For employers, it shows that a structured process and documented attempts to engage can defend a dismissal even when medical evidence is incomplete.
Similar cases
Practice nurse dismissed for gross misconduct: flawed process but dismissal inevitable
A practice nurse with 46 years' experience was unfairly dismissed due to a flawed disciplinary process, but the tribunal found she would have been dismissed anyway and reduced her compensation by 60% for her own conduct. She was awarded £1,610.66.
Security officer dismissed after back injury: tribunal finds unfair dismissal and disability discrimination
A security officer with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after a back injury. The tribunal also found that CIS Security Ltd failed to make reasonable adjustments and discriminated against him arising from his disability.
Clinical Support Worker awarded statutory redundancy payment after 19 years' service
A tribunal awarded a statutory redundancy payment of £2,077.16 to a Clinical Support Worker with 19 years' service, finding that his refusal of an alternative role was not unreasonable.
Dismissed for failing to engage during sickness absence: a case of non-cooperation
A Business Support Coordinator with two years' service was fairly dismissed after failing to engage with his employer's sickness absence process. The tribunal also awarded £1,771 for unauthorised wage deductions.