32-year employee dismissed for unauthorised absence: employer's decision upheld
A warehouse operative with 32 years' service was fairly dismissed after failing to contact his employer for nearly a month. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #long-service
- #addisons-disease
- #failure-to-contact
- #gross-misconduct
- #small-employer
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a warehouse operative from 22 October 1990 until 14 February 2023.
- The claimant was absent from work from 18 January 2023 without contacting the respondent.
- The respondent made numerous attempts to contact the claimant by text, email, and letter, but received no response.
- The claimant was invited to a disciplinary hearing but did not attend or provide any explanation.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for unauthorised absence, which was considered gross misconduct.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began working for the respondent as a warehouse operative.
-
Last day at work
The claimant attended work and was reminded of the absence reporting procedure.
-
Absence began
The claimant did not attend work and failed to contact the respondent.
-
Letter sent to claimant
The respondent wrote to the claimant asking him to contact them by 6 February to explain his absence.
-
Disciplinary hearing invitation
The respondent invited the claimant to a disciplinary hearing on 14 February.
-
Dismissal
The respondent dismissed the claimant with immediate effect for unauthorised absence.
-
Early conciliation started
Early conciliation began and ended on 31 March 2023.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented his claim to the tribunal.
-
Final hearing
The tribunal heard the case and dismissed all claims.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer acted reasonably in treating the claimant's unauthorised absence as gross misconduct and dismissing him without any explanation from the employee.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim, finding that the dismissal was fair.
- The claimant had 32 years' service but failed to attend work or contact his employer from 18 January 2023.
- The employer made numerous attempts to contact him by text, email, and letter, but received no response.
- The disciplinary hearing went ahead in his absence, and he was dismissed for gross misconduct.
- No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Even long-serving employees can be fairly dismissed if they fail to maintain contact with their employer during an absence.
- Employers should make reasonable efforts to contact an absent employee before proceeding to dismissal, as Bapp did here.
- Attending a disciplinary hearing or providing an explanation can be crucial – silence may lead to dismissal.
- Small employers may have more limited resources, but they must still follow a fair process.
A case of silence
This case shows that even an employee with 32 years' service can be fairly dismissed if they simply stop coming to work and ignore all attempts at contact. The claimant, a warehouse operative, last attended work on 13 January 2023 and was reminded of the absence reporting procedure. Five days later, he failed to turn up and did not call in.
Bapp Industrial Supplies did not act hastily. Over the next few weeks, the company sent texts, emails, and a letter asking the claimant to explain his absence. When he did not respond, he was invited to a disciplinary hearing. He did not attend or provide any reason. The employer dismissed him for unauthorised absence, treating it as gross misconduct.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal had to consider whether the employer's decision to dismiss fell within the 'range of reasonable responses' – the legal test for fairness. Despite the claimant's long service, the tribunal concluded that Bapp had acted reasonably. The employer had given the claimant every opportunity to explain himself, but he chose not to engage. In those circumstances, dismissal was a proportionate response.
The claimant also brought claims for holiday pay and arrears of pay, but those failed too. The tribunal did not award any compensation.
What this means for similar cases
This case is a reminder that the duty to maintain contact during absence rests with the employee. While employers must follow a fair process, they are not expected to wait indefinitely. If an employee goes silent and ignores reasonable attempts to reach them, dismissal may be justified – even for someone with decades of service.
For employees, the lesson is clear: if you are unable to attend work, keep your employer informed. A failure to communicate can have serious consequences, regardless of your length of service.
Similar cases
Car valet dismissed for abusive language: procedural unfairness but no compensation awarded
A car valet with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after using foul language towards a colleague, but the tribunal awarded no compensation because his conduct wholly caused his dismissal.
16-year service, one clear breach: dismissal for gross misconduct upheld
A senior customer advisor with 16 years' unblemished service was dismissed for gross misconduct after creating two accounts for one customer. The tribunal upheld the decision, finding the employer acted reasonably.
24-year manager dismissed for falsifying delivery records: tribunal upholds gross misconduct decision
An operations manager with 24 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after making unauthorised manual carded entries and giving incorrect explanations. The tribunal rejected both his unfair and wrongful dismissal claims.
Night shelf stacker dismissed for failing to scan items: Tesco's decision upheld
A Tesco employee with 12 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after failing to scan and pay for items on multiple occasions while using the Scan as You Shop service. The tribunal found Tesco's investigation and decision were reasonable.