Service engineer dismissed after long-term sickness: attendance procedure found fair
A service engineer with 4.5 years' service was fairly dismissed for poor attendance after progressing through a staged absence management process. The tribunal rejected his claims that the dismissal was linked to protected disclosures about a chemical.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #long-term-sickness
- #managing-for-attendance
- #protected-disclosure
- #detriment
- #some-other-substantial-reason
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Service Engineer Level 1 from 21 October 2013 until 27 April 2018.
- He was absent for 123 days between November 2015 and April 2018 due to various illnesses.
- The respondent had a Managing For Attendance procedure and the claimant progressed through stages 1 to 4.
- The claimant made three protected disclosures about a chemical (DCM) in September/October 2017.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant due to unacceptable levels of attendance.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was fair and not linked to the protected disclosures.
Timeline
-
First absence
Claimant absent due to plantar fasciitis, triggering Stage 1 of MFA procedure.
-
Stage 1 meeting
Meeting held; no further action taken.
-
Placed on Stage 1
Claimant placed on Stage 1 of MFA due to attendance concerns.
-
Chest infection absence
Claimant absent with chest infection; later placed on Stage 2.
-
DCM exposure incident
Claimant used DCM-containing chemical; later made protected disclosures.
-
First protected disclosure
Claimant's TU representative disclosed DCM concerns to safety manager.
-
Second protected disclosure
Claimant reported to HSE.
-
Request to sign off job
Claimant asked to sign off inspection he had not done; refused.
-
D exam request
Claimant asked to carry out D exam; he considered it isolating.
-
Investigation meeting incident
Claimant refused right to be accompanied; raised voices with manager.
-
Grievance raised
Claimant raised grievance about treatment.
-
Dismissal
Claimant dismissed at Stage 4 MFA meeting due to unacceptable attendance.
-
Appeal outcome
Appeal dismissed; dismissal upheld.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal for poor attendance was fair, and whether he suffered detriments because of his protected disclosures about a chemical (DCM). It also considered whether the dismissal was automatically unfair for health and safety reasons.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It held that the dismissal was fair because the employer had a genuine concern about attendance levels, followed its staged procedure, and gave the claimant ample opportunity to improve. The protected disclosures were not the reason for any detriment or dismissal.
- Unfair dismissal claim: failed
- Automatic unfair dismissal (health and safety): failed
- Detriment claims: failed
- No compensation awarded
Lessons & takeaways
- Long-term sickness absence can justify dismissal if the employer follows a proper process and gives the employee time to improve.
- Making a protected disclosure does not give blanket immunity from dismissal for unrelated conduct or capability issues.
- Employers should ensure they follow their own attendance management procedures consistently and document each stage.
- Employees who raise health and safety concerns should keep evidence of any link between the disclosure and subsequent treatment.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates that a well-documented attendance management procedure can protect an employer from unfair dismissal claims, even when the employee has raised serious health and safety concerns. The claimant, a service engineer with 4.5 years' service, had 123 days of absence over two and a half years. The employer followed its staged Managing for Attendance (MFA) process, holding meetings and giving warnings before eventually dismissing at Stage 4.
What the employer did right
The employer could demonstrate that the dismissal was solely about attendance, not about the protected disclosures. The tribunal noted that the decision-maker was unaware of the disclosures at the time of dismissal, and the appeal officer also found no connection. The employer also gave the claimant opportunities to improve and followed its own procedure consistently.
Why the result matters
For employees, this case is a reminder that raising a protected disclosure does not prevent dismissal for unrelated reasons, such as poor attendance. For employers, it confirms that a fair process, properly documented, can withstand scrutiny even when the employee has multiple grievances. The key is to separate the issues and make decisions based on objective criteria.
Similar cases
Care home manager's whistleblowing claim fails as decision-maker unaware of disclosures
A care home manager who claimed he was automatically unfairly dismissed for raising concerns about resident safety lost his case. The tribunal found the decision-maker did not know about the disclosures and dismissed him for genuine belief in gross misconduct.
Live-in carer wins whistleblowing detriment claim but loses constructive dismissal case
A live-in carer with 32 years' experience won a whistleblowing detriment claim after raising safety concerns, but her constructive dismissal claim failed. She was awarded £1,775.
Trainee car salesman loses whistleblowing claim over father's email to CEO
A trainee car sales executive with 2.5 months' service failed to prove he made a protected disclosure when his father sent an email to the CEO alleging fraud. The tribunal found the email was not a disclosure by the claimant and was not in the public interest.
Whistleblowing claims dismissed: pre-school practitioner's disclosures not protected
A pre-school practitioner who claimed she was dismissed for whistleblowing lost her case after the tribunal found her disclosures did not tend to show health or safety endangerment.