Compounder dismissed for unauthorised absence: procedural unfairness but 100% contribution
A compounder was unfairly dismissed after being accused of new allegations at his disciplinary hearing, but the tribunal found he contributed 100% to his dismissal and awarded no compensation.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #unauthorised-absence
- #insubordination
- #breach-of-confidence
- #procedural-unfairness
- #contributory-conduct-100
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a compounder from 6 January 2020 until his summary dismissal on 24 May 2022.
- On 9 May 2022, the claimant asked for leave on 12 and 13 May to attend a job interview; the supervisor said it should be fine but did not confirm.
- On 11 May, the claimant was told his leave request was refused; he was offered the chance to attend the interview and return to work afterwards.
- The claimant attended the interview on 12 May but did not return to work or notify the respondent of his absence.
- The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct (insubordination and breach of confidence) after a disciplinary hearing on 24 May 2022.
- The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because the claimant was not clearly told he faced allegations of insubordination and breach of confidence before the hearing.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began working for the respondent as a compounder.
-
Leave request
The claimant asked supervisor Mr Glew for leave on 12 and 13 May to attend a job interview; Mr Glew said it should be fine but did not confirm.
-
Leave refused
The claimant checked with shift supervisor Mr Gill and was told his leave request had been refused. Shift manager Mr Howard offered the chance to attend the interview and return to work afterwards.
-
Unauthorised absence
The claimant attended the interview in Bradford but did not return to work or contact the respondent. He did not answer calls from Mr Howard.
-
Return to work meeting
The claimant had a return to work meeting with Mr Gill and signed a form stating he was feeling under the weather.
-
Investigation invitation
The claimant was invited to an investigation meeting regarding his absence on 12 May.
-
Investigation meeting
The claimant attended an investigation meeting with Mr Chapman and admitted he had no excuse, saying it was 'sour grapes'.
-
Disciplinary hearing invitation
The claimant was invited to a disciplinary hearing for unauthorised absence, which could amount to gross misconduct.
-
Disciplinary hearing and dismissal
At the hearing, Mr Cassin raised allegations of insubordination and breach of confidence for the first time and summarily dismissed the claimant.
-
Appeal lodged
The claimant appealed, arguing the gross misconduct allegations were not put to him before dismissal.
-
Appeal hearing
The appeal was heard by Mr Cook, who upheld the dismissal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer acted reasonably in treating unauthorised absence as gross misconduct and whether the employee's own conduct contributed to the dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal decided the claimant was unfairly dismissed because the employer introduced new allegations of insubordination and breach of confidence at the disciplinary hearing without prior notice, making the process procedurally unfair.
However, the tribunal found the claimant contributed 100% to his dismissal by taking unauthorised leave and failing to contact his employer. As a result:
- The basic award was reduced to nil.
- The compensatory award was reduced to nil.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must clearly inform employees of the specific allegations they face before a disciplinary hearing, or the dismissal may be procedurally unfair.
- Taking unauthorised leave without notifying your employer can amount to gross misconduct and may result in dismissal.
- Even if a dismissal is found unfair, the tribunal can reduce compensation to zero if the employee's own conduct contributed entirely to the dismissal.
A dismissal that was unfair in procedure but justified in outcome
This case highlights how a procedurally flawed dismissal can still leave an employee with no compensation. The claimant, a compounder with two years' service, asked for two days off to attend a job interview. When his leave was refused, he was offered the chance to attend the interview and return to work afterwards. He attended the interview but did not return to work or contact his employer.
At the disciplinary hearing, the employer raised new allegations of insubordination and breach of confidence that had not been mentioned in the invitation letter. The tribunal found this procedural error made the dismissal unfair. However, the tribunal also found that the claimant's own conduct—taking unauthorised leave and failing to communicate—was the sole cause of his dismissal.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer could have avoided the unfair dismissal finding by clearly setting out all allegations in the disciplinary invitation. The failure to do so meant the claimant was not given a fair opportunity to respond. However, the employer's decision to dismiss for gross misconduct was otherwise reasonable given the claimant's deliberate absence.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that procedural fairness is a key requirement for a fair dismissal. Employees should be told exactly what they are accused of before a disciplinary hearing. However, it also shows that even if a dismissal is unfair, compensation can be reduced or eliminated if the employee's own conduct contributed significantly to the outcome.
Similar cases
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.
Trade promoter with 20 years' service unfairly dismissed but denied compensation over secret commission
The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair, but refused to award any compensation because after-dismissed evidence showed the employee had sought a secret commission from a customer.
Janitor dismissed for unauthorised absences caught on CCTV: gross misconduct upheld
A janitor with six years' service was fairly dismissed after CCTV and fob data showed he spent extended periods away from his post. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.
PWE sign-off delay: resignation over unauthorised absence meeting was not constructive dismissal
A graduate trainee accountant who resigned after being invited to a disciplinary meeting for unauthorised absence failed to prove constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal found the employer's conduct did not breach trust and confidence.