Stock technician dismissed for unauthorised absence: conduct dismissal upheld
A stock technician with six years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after an unauthorised absence. The tribunal rejected claims of unfair dismissal, age discrimination, and harassment.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The Claimant was employed as a Stock Technician from 1 June 2016 until dismissal on 25 May 2022.
- The Claimant was absent without leave from 28 April to 16 May 2022 and failed to maintain contact with his employer.
- The Claimant had a history of absences and had received a final written warning in December 2020.
- The Respondent dismissed the Claimant for gross misconduct due to unauthorised absence and failure to follow the absence reporting policy.
- The Claimant's claims for unfair dismissal, age discrimination, and harassment were all dismissed.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started work as a Stock Technician at Stanmore Implants Worldwide Ltd.
-
Absence review policy triggered
Respondent initiated formal absence review due to Claimant's intermittent absences.
-
Verbal warning issued
Claimant received a verbal warning for attendance issues, active for 6 months.
-
First written warning
Claimant received a first written warning for unauthorised absence and failure to follow policy.
-
Final written warning
Claimant received a final written warning for further absences, active for 12 months.
-
Absence began
Claimant texted manager to say he would not attend work due to a family issue.
-
Return to work
Claimant returned to work after being absent without leave since 28 April.
-
Dismissal
Claimant dismissed for gross misconduct following a disciplinary hearing.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal heard by Mr Crowley; decision to dismiss upheld on 3 August 2022.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented claims for unfair dismissal, redundancy payment, and age discrimination.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed, whether he was entitled to a redundancy payment, and whether he was subjected to age discrimination or harassment related to age.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims.
The key reasons were:
- The claimant was absent without leave from 28 April to 16 May 2022 and failed to maintain contact with his employer.
- He had a history of absences and was under a final written warning for similar conduct.
- The employer's decision to dismiss for gross misconduct was within the range of reasonable responses.
- The age discrimination and harassment claims were either out of time or unfounded.
No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees must follow their employer's absence reporting policy, even when dealing with personal or family issues.
- A history of attendance warnings can make dismissal for a further breach more likely to be considered fair.
- Discrimination claims must be brought within three months of the act complained of, or they will be out of time.
This case shows how a pattern of unauthorised absence, combined with a final written warning, can justify dismissal for gross misconduct. The claimant, a stock technician with six years' service, went absent without leave for nearly three weeks after texting his manager about a family issue. He did not follow the company's absence reporting policy, and when he returned, he was dismissed.
The tribunal accepted that the employer genuinely believed the claimant had committed gross misconduct. The claimant had a poor attendance record and had already received a final written warning for similar conduct in December 2020. The employer's decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses, and the dismissal was fair.
The claimant also brought claims for age discrimination and harassment, but these were dismissed. The harassment claim was out of time, and the age discrimination claim had no evidence to support it. The tribunal noted that the claimant had not mentioned his age in any of his appeals or grievances.
What the employer did right
Stanmore Implants followed its disciplinary procedure, held a hearing, and considered the claimant's explanations. The claimant was allowed to appeal, but the decision was upheld. The employer had a clear absence policy and had previously warned the claimant about his attendance.
What this means for similar cases
This case is a reminder that employers can fairly dismiss for conduct if they follow a fair process and have a genuine belief in the misconduct. Employees with a history of attendance issues are particularly at risk if they fail to follow reporting procedures. For claimants, bringing discrimination claims without any supporting evidence is unlikely to succeed.
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.
Packing operator dismissed for leaving early without permission: dismissal fair despite inconsistent colleague treatment
An employment tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a packing operator with 11 years' service who left work early without authorisation and was found to have been dishonest about his start time. No compensation was awarded.
31-year employee made redundant: tribunal upholds fairness despite missed consultations
A tribunal has ruled that Wolseley UK Limited fairly dismissed a long-serving employee by reason of redundancy, rejecting claims of age discrimination, harassment, and victimisation.
Victimisation after reporting sexual harassment: a teenager dismissed for speaking up
A 16-year-old front-of-house worker was dismissed three days after her mother confronted the manager about sexual harassment by a chef. The Manchester tribunal awarded £13,886 for victimisation.