In the case of Miss C Thorley v Acute Barbers Celine Thorley was sacked by salon owner Christian Donnelly after he warned her ‘not to let him down’ next week when she told him she was having people over on the Saturday night.
When she texted him on the Monday saying she had stomach ache and could not get out of bed, he said he’d ‘had enough’ of her calling in sick after a ‘good weekend’ and sacked her.
But she has now won an unfair dismissal claim after an employment tribunal ruled she had been genuinely ill.
Her boss thought she was a ‘friendly and talented’ barber, but their relationship came under strain when she developed a pattern of calling in sick on Mondays the tribunal heard.
Mr Donnelly said that, in her first year of working, she had more time off than all of her colleagues ‘combined’.
He claimed these sickness days fell conveniently on Mondays and Tuesdays after a heavy weekend, recalling 17 such occasions, plus a 10 day absence because of a burn.
Miss Thorley told the Cardiff hearing she was suffering from suspected endometriosis, a disease affecting the lining of a woman’s womb.
Employment Judge Roseanne Russell determined that Miss Thorley was sick with a ‘heavy period’ at the time she was sacked.
She said: ‘I considered that menorrhagia (heavy periods) is a symptom of suspected endometriosis. (Miss Thorley) has menorrhagia. Overall, I concluded that (Miss Thorley) had a physical impairment of menorrhagia at the material time.’
Upholding her claim of unfair dismissal, Judge Russell said: ‘(Mr) Donnelly did not act reasonably in all the circumstances in treating (Miss Thorley’s) poor attendance as a sufficient reason to dismiss.
‘(She) never received any formal warnings about her attendance. She was not invited to a meeting to discuss her non-attendance.
‘She was not given an opportunity to explain herself before being dismissed. There was no fair process followed.’ Miss Thorley was awarded £3,453 in compensation.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
