Store manager dismissed for taking unauthorised leave during iPhone launch embargo
A store manager who took unauthorised holiday during an iPhone launch embargo was fairly dismissed, the tribunal ruled, rejecting his claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination based on dyslexia.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #unauthorised-absence
- #dyslexia
- #disability-discrimination
- #store-manager
- #awol-policy
- #iphone-launch-embargo
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Store Manager from 6 August 2018 until dismissal on 7 October 2021.
- The claimant did not attend work from 13 to 26 September 2021 after his holiday request was refused due to an iPhone launch embargo.
- The claimant was dismissed for unauthorised absence following a disciplinary hearing on 7 October 2021.
- The claimant alleged he had dyslexia but the tribunal found insufficient evidence to establish he was a disabled person under the Equality Act 2010.
- The tribunal found the respondent had a genuine belief in misconduct, conducted a reasonable investigation, and dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started work as a Store Manager for EE Limited.
-
Holiday request discussion
Claimant asked line manager Paul Redhead for leave from 15 to 22 September 2021, which was during the iPhone launch embargo period.
-
Holiday request refused
Mr Redhead refused the leave request; claimant indicated he would take the time off anyway.
-
Email confirming refusal
Mr Redhead emailed the claimant confirming the leave was declined and warning that unauthorised absence would lead to investigation.
-
Unauthorised absence began
Claimant did not attend work and did not contact his manager.
-
AWOL letter sent
Mr Redhead wrote to claimant advising he was considered AWOL and suspended.
-
Disciplinary hearing invitation
Claimant invited to disciplinary hearing for unauthorised absence and failure to report.
-
Dismissal
Claimant dismissed for gross misconduct (unauthorised absence) after disciplinary hearing.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed his dismissal.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal heard by Aldona Walczak.
-
Appeal refused
Claimant informed his appeal was unsuccessful.
-
Claim presented
Claimant submitted ET1 claim for unfair dismissal, breach of contract, and disability discrimination.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the store manager was unfairly dismissed for unauthorised absence, whether his dyslexia amounted to a disability under the Equality Act 2010, and whether the employer failed to make reasonable adjustments.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims, ruling that the store manager was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after taking unauthorised leave during a busy iPhone launch period.
Key reasons:
- The employer had a genuine belief in misconduct based on the manager's refusal to accept the holiday refusal and his failure to attend work or report absence.
- The investigation and disciplinary process were reasonable, and dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses for a store manager.
- The claimant failed to prove he was a disabled person due to dyslexia; there was insufficient medical evidence of a long-term, substantial adverse effect on daily activities.
- As a result, the disability discrimination and reasonable adjustment claims also failed.
No compensation was awarded as all claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers can fairly dismiss for unauthorised absence if they follow a reasonable process and the employee has been warned about the consequences.
- Claiming a disability like dyslexia requires clear medical evidence of a long-term and substantial impact on day-to-day activities.
- Taking leave after a refusal, especially during a known business-critical period, is a high-risk decision that can justify dismissal.
- Representing yourself at tribunal is possible but challenging; legal advice can help in presenting evidence and understanding legal tests.
This case shows the risks employees take when they decide to go on holiday after their employer has refused the request, particularly during a known busy period. The store manager was told his leave request was declined due to an iPhone launch embargo, but he took the time off anyway and did not contact his manager. EE Limited treated this as gross misconduct and dismissed him after a disciplinary hearing.
What the tribunal considered
The tribunal examined whether the employer acted reasonably. It found that EE Limited had a genuine belief that the manager was guilty of unauthorised absence, based on his own statements and actions. The investigation was reasonable, and dismissal was within the range of responses a reasonable employer might take. The manager's three years of service meant he was entitled to a fair process, but the tribunal concluded that the process was fair.
The manager also claimed he was dyslexic and that this affected his understanding of the absence policy, but the tribunal found insufficient evidence that his dyslexia amounted to a disability under the Equality Act 2010. He had not sought medical advice or provided expert evidence showing a long-term, substantial adverse effect on daily activities.
What the employer did right
EE Limited followed its disciplinary procedure, sent clear warnings about unauthorised absence, and gave the manager an opportunity to explain his actions. The appeal process was also properly conducted. This thorough approach helped the employer successfully defend the claim.
Why this matters
For employees, the case is a reminder that unauthorised absence can lead to dismissal, even if you feel your reasons are justified. For employers, it shows that a well-documented process and clear communication can protect against unfair dismissal claims. The case also highlights the importance of obtaining proper medical evidence before bringing a disability discrimination claim.
Similar cases
Facilities manager dismissed after sham redundancy and disciplinary process
A facilities manager with dyslexia and heart failure was unfairly dismissed after his employer turned a redundancy process into a disciplinary hearing. The tribunal found the process was a sham and the real reason was a breakdown in trust and confidence.
Parking warden with dyslexia unfairly dismissed over GPS data: tribunal finds discrimination
A civil enforcement officer with severe dyslexia was unfairly dismissed after GPS data appeared to contradict his patrol records. The tribunal found procedural failings and indirect disability discrimination, awarding £17,126.
Call centre agent's disability claims against managers dismissed
A call centre agent with learning difficulties failed to prove that his managers discriminated against him. The tribunal dismissed claims of failure to make reasonable adjustments and harassment.
Manager dismissed for using racial slur during race training: unfair and discriminatory
A manager with 18 years' service was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against for using the full N-word during a race education session. The tribunal found his dyslexia contributed to the error and ordered Lloyds Banking Group to pay over £454,000.