Dismissed for unauthorised absence after husband's death: employer's decision upheld
An employee with 20 years' service was fairly dismissed for unauthorised absence after failing to maintain contact while overseas. The tribunal rejected claims of unfair and wrongful dismissal.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #unauthorised-absence
- #prolonged-absence
- #failure-to-communicate
- #conduct-dismissal
- #appeal-upheld
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by the respondent from 2001 until dismissal on 5 August 2021.
- The claimant took leave from 23 November 2020 and was due to return on 5 January 2021.
- On 5 January 2021 the claimant texted her manager that her husband had died and she would be in mourning for 40 days.
- The claimant remained absent and made only minimal contact with the respondent until 29 April 2021.
- The respondent held a disciplinary hearing in the claimant's absence on 27 July 2021 and dismissed her summarily on 5 August 2021.
- The claimant returned to the UK on 14 August 2021 and appealed, but the dismissal was upheld.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
The claimant started working for the London Borough of Newham.
-
Husband died
The claimant's husband died, but she did not inform the respondent at the time.
-
Leave started
The claimant began a period of extended leave to travel to Nigeria for her husband's funeral.
-
Failed to return; texted manager
The claimant was due to return but texted her manager that her husband had died and she would be in mourning for 40 days.
-
Warning letter sent
The respondent sent a letter warning that pay would be stopped if the claimant did not make contact.
-
Pay stopped
The claimant's pay ceased due to unauthorised absence.
-
Claimant texted (not received)
The claimant sent a text stating she had been hospitalised, but the manager did not receive it.
-
Claimant texted again (not received)
The claimant sent another text about hospitalisation, again not received by the manager.
-
Claimant responded to manager's text
The claimant texted that she was overseas, unwell, and in hospital. This was the last contact before dismissal.
-
Final warning letter
The respondent wrote that if the claimant did not contact by 10 June, disciplinary proceedings would start.
-
Disciplinary hearing in absence
The respondent held a disciplinary hearing without the claimant and decided to dismiss.
-
Dismissal effective
The claimant was summarily dismissed with immediate effect.
-
Claimant returned to UK
The claimant returned to the UK after the dismissal.
-
Appeal lodged
The claimant appealed against dismissal with trade union assistance.
-
Appeal hearing
The claimant attended an appeal hearing with her union representative.
-
Appeal dismissed
The respondent upheld the dismissal decision.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal for unauthorised absence was fair under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and whether the employer was entitled to dismiss without notice for repudiatory breach of contract.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed both the unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims.
The key reason was that the employee's prolonged unauthorised absence and failure to maintain contact, despite the employer's repeated attempts, amounted to a fair reason for dismissal related to conduct. The employer had followed a reasonable procedure, including sending warning letters and holding a disciplinary hearing in the employee's absence.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees should maintain regular contact with their employer during any extended absence, especially if overseas, to avoid being treated as having abandoned their job.
- Employers are entitled to take disciplinary action for unauthorised absence if they have made reasonable efforts to contact the employee and given clear warnings about the consequences.
- Even long-serving employees can be fairly dismissed if they fail to communicate and do not provide a reasonable explanation for their absence.
A tragic personal loss, but a failure to communicate
This case highlights the tension between an employee's personal circumstances and an employer's need to manage attendance. The employee, who had worked for the London Borough of Newham for 20 years, took leave to travel to Nigeria for her husband's funeral. When she failed to return on time, she sent a brief text saying she would be in mourning for 40 days. She then remained largely silent for months, despite the employer's repeated attempts to contact her by text, email, and even a home visit.
The employer eventually stopped her pay, sent final warnings, and held a disciplinary hearing in her absence. The employee was dismissed summarily on 5 August 2021, only returning to the UK nine days later. She appealed with union support, but the dismissal was upheld.
What the employer did right
The tribunal noted that the employer had acted reasonably throughout. It had made genuine efforts to contact the employee, given clear warnings that continued absence could lead to dismissal, and followed a fair disciplinary process. The employee's minimal contact — two texts that the manager did not receive — was not enough to explain her prolonged absence. The tribunal accepted that the employer had a genuine belief in her misconduct and that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses.
Why the result matters
This outcome shows that even in tragic circumstances, employees have a duty to maintain communication with their employer. The tribunal acknowledged the employee's personal loss but concluded that her failure to engage with the employer's reasonable attempts to manage her absence made the dismissal fair. For employers, the case reinforces the importance of documenting efforts to contact absent employees and following a clear disciplinary procedure before dismissing for unauthorised absence.
Similar cases
Furlough breach: dismissed for travelling abroad without permission
A general operative who flew to Slovakia while on furlough was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct, the tribunal has ruled.
Registered nurse dismissed for refusing to return to work: conduct dismissal upheld
A tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a Band 5 registered nurse who refused to return to work after being removed from clinical duties over patient safety concerns. All claims, including unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, were dismissed.
Dismissed for unauthorised absence while caring for mother: conduct dismissal upheld
A security officer who stopped attending work to care for his vulnerable mother was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct. The tribunal found the employer acted reasonably in dismissing for unauthorised absence, but awarded £195.72 for unpaid holiday pay.
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.