Weekend Support Worker dismissed after 22-month sickness absence: employer's decision upheld
A tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a Weekend Support Worker who was absent for nearly two years and failed to engage with welfare meetings or provide medical evidence. The employer, Our Place Schools Ltd, was found to have acted reasonably.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #long-term-sickness
- #failure-to-attend-welfare-meetings
- #failure-to-provide-fit-notes
- #failure-to-consent-to-medical-report
- #alternative-employment-not-available
Key facts
- The claimant was absent from work from January 2018 until his dismissal in November 2019.
- The claimant failed to attend multiple welfare meetings and did not provide up-to-date fit notes on several occasions.
- The claimant refused to consent to the respondent obtaining a medical report from his GP.
- The respondent repeatedly warned the claimant that his continued absence could lead to dismissal.
- The claimant's appeal against dismissal was not upheld after a hearing with the CEO.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started work as a Weekend Support Worker.
-
Suspension
Claimant suspended following a safeguarding allegation; suspension lifted on 21 December 2017.
-
Absence began
Claimant did not return to work after suspension lifted; absence continued until dismissal.
-
First tribunal claim
Claimant filed claim no 1303155/2018 for race and religious discrimination.
-
Unless Order
Employment Judge Hindmarch made an Unless Order for disclosure in the first claim.
-
Dismissal
Respondent dismissed claimant on grounds of capability due to long-term absence and failure to engage.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal heard by CEO Mr French; appeal not upheld.
-
Second tribunal claim
Claimant filed claim for unfair dismissal and discrimination.
-
Preliminary hearing
Employment Judge V Jones struck out discrimination claims but allowed unfair dismissal claim to proceed.
-
Final hearing
Employment Judge Hindmarch heard unfair dismissal claim; reserved decision.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's decision to dismiss the claimant on grounds of capability due to long-term sickness absence was fair, considering the claimant's lack of engagement with welfare meetings and refusal to provide medical consent.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint, ruling that Our Place Schools Ltd acted reasonably.
Key reasons:
- The claimant was absent from work for 22 months without returning.
- He failed to attend welfare meetings and did not provide up-to-date fit notes.
- He refused to consent to the employer obtaining a medical report from his GP.
- The employer gave repeated warnings about potential dismissal.
- No alternative employment was available.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was unsuccessful.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees on long-term sick leave should engage with their employer's welfare meetings and provide medical evidence to avoid dismissal.
- Refusing to consent to a medical report can leave an employer with no choice but to make a decision based on available information.
- Employers should document warnings and attempts to gather medical evidence to show they acted reasonably.
- Length of service (here 2 years) is relevant but not decisive; the key is whether the employer followed a fair process.
A case of non-engagement
This case shows what can happen when an employee on long-term sick leave fails to cooperate with their employer's attempts to manage their absence. The claimant, a Weekend Support Worker, was absent from work for nearly two years after a suspension ended. During that time, he missed welfare meetings, did not provide fit notes, and refused to let his employer obtain a medical report from his GP.
What the employer did right
Our Place Schools Ltd repeatedly wrote to the claimant, warning him that his continued absence could lead to dismissal. They tried to arrange welfare meetings and asked for his consent to contact his GP. When he did not respond, they made the decision to dismiss on capability grounds. The tribunal found that the employer had followed a fair process and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
What the claimant could have done differently
The claimant argued that he could have been relocated to another centre, but he did not provide evidence that a suitable alternative role existed. He also suggested that the dismissal was a strategy to hinder his other tribunal claim, but the tribunal rejected this. By not engaging with the process, the claimant left the employer with little option but to proceed without his input.
Why this matters
For employees, this case highlights the importance of maintaining communication with your employer during sickness absence. For employers, it shows that a fair process, with clear warnings and attempts to obtain medical evidence, can protect against an unfair dismissal claim even when the employee is uncooperative.
Similar cases
Agency worker's multiple claims struck out: no jurisdiction and out of time
An agency worker who worked for less than two years had his unfair dismissal, unpaid wages, and breach of contract claims dismissed by the tribunal, along with human exploitation allegations which the tribunal had no power to hear.
Dismissed while on sick leave: fixed-term contract not renewed without consultation
A mental health practitioner with 15 years' experience was unfairly dismissed when her fixed-term contract was not renewed while she was on long-term sick leave. The tribunal awarded £33,443.28.
Long-term sickness dismissal: employer's flawed process saved by fair appeal
A station support assistant lost his unfair dismissal claim after 20 months off work. The tribunal found the initial decision to dismiss was premature, but the appeal corrected the flaw.
Meter reader with 16 years' service unfairly dismissed for ill health capability
A meter reader who was dismissed while on long-term sick leave after a motorbike accident has won his unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claim. The tribunal found that Morrison Data Services Ltd failed to obtain an up-to-date occupational health report before deciding to dismiss.