Employee's Unfair Dismissal Claim Over Covid-19 Absence Fails at Appeal Tribunal
The EAT has dismissed an appeal by an employee dismissed for unauthorised absence during the Covid-19 pandemic. The original tribunal found no unfair dismissal. Section 57A was found not to apply.
• public
Employment Appeal Tribunal Upholds Dismissal in Ghebrehiwt v Wilson James Ltd
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has upheld an Employment Tribunal decision in the case of Mr Amanuel Ghebrehiwt v Wilson James Ltd [2025] EAT 50, dismissing an appeal against a finding of fair dismissal. The case centred on the employee's absence without authorisation during the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Background to the Claim
Mr. Ghebrehiwt absented himself from work, stating it was to care for his vulnerable mother during the pandemic. He remained absent despite warnings and the initiation of disciplinary proceedings by Wilson James Ltd. The original Employment Tribunal ruled that section 57A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (time off for dependents) did not grant the employee the right to an extended absence for direct care.
The Employment Tribunal's Findings
The initial tribunal found that Mr. Ghebrehiwt had been fairly dismissed for being absent without authorisation from January 27, 2021, to March 4, 2021. They also ruled that he had not been wrongfully dismissed and was not entitled to time off under section 57A to care for his mother.
Judge Stout, presiding over the EAT, outlined the original tribunal's findings, including the claimant's acknowledgement of unauthorised absence and his belief that authorisation was unnecessary due to his caregiving responsibilities. The EAT also considered arguments regarding alleged procedural irregularities and the refusal to admit additional evidence. The claim of a fraudulent doctoring of evidence by Wilson James was discounted.
Appeal Tribunal's Decision
The EAT found no error of law in the Employment Tribunal’s decision and dismissed the appeal. Judge Stout addressed several grounds of appeal, including whether the dismissal was for the reason asserted by the respondent and whether the tribunal erred in refusing additional evidence. The EAT concluded that the additional evidence would not have altered the outcome and that the claimant's arguments regarding contact with the employer were immaterial to the core issue of unauthorised absence.
The EAT also rejected claims of procedural unfairness related to the role of a specific manager, Mr. Ceesay, in the disciplinary process. The tribunal found that the decision-making process involved multiple individuals and that the dismissal was ultimately due to the claimant's unauthorised absence.
Finally, the EAT addressed the wrongful dismissal claim, concluding that the Employment Tribunal had adequately considered whether the claimant's conduct amounted to gross misconduct, justifying summary dismissal. The EAT deemed that prolonged unauthorised absence constituted gross misconduct in this case.
Ultimately, the EAT dismissed all grounds of appeal, bringing the proceedings to an end.
Read the entire judgement here: Mr Amanuel Ghebrehiwt v Wilson James Ltd [2025] EAT 50
