A former airport security supervisor has been awarded more than £45,000 after an employment tribunal ruled she was unfairly dismissed over her sickness absence record.
Susan Caroline, who had more than seven years’ service at Aberdeen Airport, was dismissed by security services provider ICTS (UK) in December 2024 after recording 55 days of sickness absence over a 21-month period. Her absences included shoulder surgery, Covid-19, a flu-like illness and shoulder pain.
Caroline was dismissed following a contractual review meeting in November 2024, having progressed through the company’s attendance management policy process.
How employers can prepare for unfair dismissal reforms
How to avoid unfair dismissal claims
Managing the end of the two-year unfair dismissal rule: guidance for employers
During the meeting, she disclosed that she was experiencing anxiety and mental health issues, was receiving GP-arranged counselling and believed arthritis could be contributing to her symptoms such as joint pain.
The tribunal found that ICTS dismissed Caroline because of her absence record and because the manager conducting the review believed the company’s attendance policy left him with no alternative.
It awarded Caroline a basic award of £7,350 and a compensatory award of £37,779. The tribunal rejected ICTS’s arguments that compensation should be reduced because of her conduct or because she would have been dismissed even if a fair process had been followed.
Background
Caroline joined Aberdeen Airport in 2017. She was initially employed by Aberdeen International Airport, but her employment transferred to ICTS in 2019 under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations.
As a security supervisor, she was responsible for overseeing security staff, carrying out passenger searches and supervising airport security operations.
Over a 21-month period, she recorded 55 days of sickness absence. The absences included 34 days off following rotator cuff surgery, two periods of Covid-19 infection, an eye injury, stomach illnesses and a 10-day absence for shoulder pain. The tribunal found that all of the absences were genuine.
The company moved Caroline through its attendance management policy process, which uses absence ‘trigger points’ – pre-set thresholds for the number or frequency of absences – to determine when employees progress to formal reviews.
After reaching the final stage, she was referred to occupational health (OH) in November 2024 following her most recent absence. The OH report recommended lighter duties and a phased return to work, both of which were implemented by the employer.
She was then invited to a contractual review meeting chaired by Dumitru Chelaru, ICTS’s Aberdeen station manager at the time, who was responsible for deciding whether her employment should continue.
At the meeting in November 2024, Caroline said she was experiencing anxiety and mental health issues and was receiving counselling through her GP. She also raised the possibility that reactive arthritis, which was later diagnosed, could be contributing to her joint pain and absences.
Despite this, Chelaru concluded that Caroline’s OH report had found she had no underlying health condition and decided to dismiss her. The tribunal later found this was a misunderstanding of the OH report, which had only stated that Caroline was unlikely to meet the legal definition of disability.
Caroline appealed the decision in December 2024. Her appeal was heard by Manuel Pombo, a divisional director. Caroline argued that she had not received meaningful support, that alternatives to dismissal had not been explored and that her health concerns were still being investigated.
By that stage, she had received a diagnosis of reactive arthritis. Her appeal was rejected by Pombo in January 2025.
Judge’s comments
Employment judge Smith found that ICTS had failed to properly investigate the reasons behind Caroline’s absences and instead focused on applying the attendance management policy.
“In my judgment, the real reason Chelaru dismissed the claimant was because of her absences and because he believed that the policy gave him no other option,” he said.
“He was following a policy for the sake of the policy, rather than trying to achieve any of the actual objectives of the policy. It was a classic case of a dismissing manager adopting ‘tunnel vision’.”
The judge found that the employer failed to investigate whether there was an underlying medical condition, despite being told that reactive arthritis could be contributing to Caroline’s absences.
“Mr Chelaru could have referred the claimant back to occupational health on this specific point, for example, but he did not. He could have asked the claimant to provide information from her GP, for example, but again he did not,” Smith stated.
He also criticised the employer for failing to consider alternatives to dismissal or assess the actual impact of Caroline’s absences on disruption to the business.
Judge Smith was equally critical of the appeal process, describing it as “shambolic” and finding that Pombo failed to properly investigate key issues raised by Caroline, including the possibility of an underlying health condition, concerns about the original decision maker’s impartiality and alternatives to dismissal.
“In reality, Mr Pombo paid no more than lip service to the fact that an appeal had been raised,” Smith said.
Lawyer’s comments
Shazia Shah, senior associate solicitor at Irwin Mitchell, said the ruling demonstrated the dangers of focusing solely on absence triggers and policy thresholds.
“The case also highlights the need to consider alternatives to dismissal and properly consider the wider context before deciding how to proceed,” she added.
Shah said managers should have open discussions with employees to understand the reasons behind absences, make effective use of OH advice and consider what support or adjustments could help improve attendance before deciding on dismissal.
Click Here For The Original Source
