Sick management templates toolkit

Lamb v. The Garrard Academy (2019):

Facts: The claimant, a teacher, was dismissed due to long-term sickness absence. She argued that the dismissal was unfair because the school failed to properly follow its own absence management procedures. 

Outcome: The Employment Tribunal found the dismissal to be unfair. The Tribunal highlighted that the employer did not adequately consider reasonable adjustments or engage in a proper consultation process before deciding to dismiss the employee.

Key takeaway: This case underscores the importance of strictly adhering to established absence management procedures and thoroughly exploring reasonable adjustments.

McMillan v. Airedale NHS Foundation Trust (2020):

Facts: An NHS employee was dismissed after a series of short-term absences. The employee claimed that the Trust had not followed its own absence management policy and that the dismissal was unfair.

Outcome: The Employment Appeal Tribunal found that the dismissal was unfair because the Trust had not consistently applied its absence management procedures.

Key takeaway: The ruling emphasised the need for employers to follow their absence management policies consistently and fairly, taking into account individual circumstances.

Dyer v. London Ambulance Service NHS Trust (2021):

Facts: The claimant, an ambulance driver, was dismissed for long-term sickness absence. He argued that the Trust had not made reasonable adjustments for his disability and had not followed the proper absence management procedure.

Outcome: The Employment Tribunal ruled in favour of the claimant, finding that the Trust failed to make reasonable adjustments and did not properly follow its absence management procedure.

Key takeaway: The case highlighted the importance of considering disability and the duty to make reasonable adjustments as part of absence management.

Platt v. Ricoh UK Ltd (2022):

Facts: An employee was dismissed for long-term sickness absence. The employee argued that the dismissal was unfair and that the employer had not followed its absence management procedures correctly.

Outcome: The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the dismissal as fair. The Tribunal found that the employer had followed its procedures correctly, including regular reviews and consultations with the employee about their absence and possible return to work.

Key takeaway: This case demonstrates that when employers correctly follow their absence management procedures, dismissals for long-term sickness absence can be deemed fair.

Chapman v. The City of London Corporation (2023):

Facts: The claimant was dismissed after a long-term sickness absence. He claimed that the dismissal was unfair and that the employer failed to follow its absence management procedure and did not consider reasonable adjustments.

Outcome: The Employment Tribunal ruled that the dismissal was unfair. The Tribunal found that the employer did not adequately follow its absence management procedure and failed to properly consider reasonable adjustments for the employee's return to work.

Key takeaway: This case underscores the necessity for employers to rigorously follow their absence management procedures and explore reasonable adjustments before deciding to dismiss an employee.