IT consultant dismissed for unauthorised absence after furlough refused: dismissal fair
An IT consultant who took unpaid leave after her furlough request was refused, then failed to return to work, was fairly dismissed for misconduct. The tribunal upheld the employer's decision.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #unauthorised-absence
- #work-mobile-phone-misuse
- #furlough-refused
- #bereavement
- #childcare-commitments
- #polkey-deduction
- #contributory-fault
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as an IT consultant from March 2018 until dismissal on 11 March 2021.
- The claimant took unpaid leave from 9 December 2020 after her request for furlough was refused.
- The claimant did not return to work on 4 January 2021 as required and remained absent without authorisation.
- The claimant used her work mobile phone for personal calls, including during unpaid leave.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant following a disciplinary hearing on 9 February 2021 for misconduct, primarily unauthorised absence.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was fair and within the band of reasonable responses.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced employment as an IT consultant.
-
Bereavement
Claimant's son died; she was granted compassionate leave.
-
Return-to-work meeting
Claimant attended a return-to-work meeting; warned about excessive mobile phone use.
-
Incident of not logging in
Claimant was not logged into the system during working hours; disputed reason.
-
Furlough request refused
Claimant requested furlough due to childcare; respondent refused and offered unpaid leave.
-
Unpaid leave started
Claimant began a period of unpaid leave.
-
Failure to return to work
Claimant did not attend work as required; sent grievance email.
-
First written warning
Respondent issued a first written warning for conduct issues.
-
Letter regarding absence
Respondent wrote to claimant about unauthorised absence and mobile phone use.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Disciplinary hearing held; claimant attended virtually.
-
Dismissal decision
Claimant dismissed on notice for misconduct.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal hearing held in claimant's absence; dismissal upheld.
-
Employment ended
Claimant's last day of employment.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal for misconduct (unauthorised absence and misuse of a work mobile phone) was fair, and whether the employer unlawfully deducted wages by refusing furlough and offering unpaid leave instead.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed both claims.
- The dismissal was fair: the employer had a genuine belief in the claimant's misconduct based on a reasonable investigation, and dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
- The claim for unlawful deduction of wages failed because the employer was entitled to refuse furlough (the claimant was needed for work) and the unpaid leave was agreed.
No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- If your employer refuses furlough and offers unpaid leave, you cannot simply stay off work without permission — it may be treated as unauthorised absence.
- Personal use of a work mobile phone, especially after a warning, can be a valid reason for disciplinary action.
- Employers are not obliged to offer furlough if they genuinely need you to work, even during the pandemic.
- A fair dismissal requires a reasonable investigation and a decision within the band of reasonable responses — the tribunal will not substitute its own view.
What this case shows
This case illustrates the limits of an employee's right to refuse work during the pandemic. The claimant, an IT consultant with three years' service, suffered a personal tragedy and later faced childcare difficulties. When her request for furlough was refused, she took unpaid leave but then failed to return to work as instructed. The employer dismissed her for unauthorised absence and misuse of a work mobile phone.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had genuine personal difficulties, but found that the employer's decision to dismiss was fair. The employer had a reasonable belief in the misconduct, carried out a proper investigation, and gave the claimant a chance to respond. The dismissal fell within the 'band of reasonable responses' — the legal test for fairness.
What could have been done differently
The claimant might have avoided dismissal by returning to work as required and pursuing a grievance separately. Instead, she remained absent without authorisation, which the employer reasonably treated as misconduct. The tribunal also noted that the claimant had been warned about excessive personal use of her work phone, yet continued to use it during unpaid leave.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that employers are not obliged to furlough employees if they genuinely need them to work. Refusing to attend work without permission, even in difficult personal circumstances, can justify dismissal. Employees who disagree with their employer's decisions should follow formal procedures rather than taking unilateral action.
Similar cases
Estate agent with Crohn's disease wins constructive dismissal and disability discrimination claim
An estate agent with Crohn's disease was constructively dismissed and discriminated against after her employer sidelined her due to her disability. The tribunal awarded £46,652.74.
Fleet operative dismissed for phone use wins race discrimination claim
A fleet operative who was dismissed for using his mobile phone while driving has won his race discrimination and unfair dismissal claims. The tribunal found the dismissal was tainted by race and reduced compensation by 50% for contributory fault.
Dismissed for not being an 'A player': unfair dismissal after 2 years' service
An office administrator with two years' service was unfairly dismissed after being told she was not an 'A player'. The tribunal awarded £3,809.67, including an ACAS uplift for failing to follow a fair procedure.
Care worker's constructive dismissal claim succeeds after ambush disciplinary meeting
A care worker who resigned after being ambushed with disciplinary allegations in a meeting she believed was a supervision session has won her constructive unfair dismissal claim, receiving £8,903.