12.09.2022. Is dismissal for persistent lateness unfair?

Persistent lateness for work can be a real problem for employers when punctuality is important, but how easy is it to dismiss an employee as a result?

In Tijani v House of Commons Commission, cleaner Ms Tijani was dismissed for continual lateness in May 2019. She previously received a a first written warning for lateness in December 2017. She then received a final written warning for lateness in April 2018. Ms Tijani was then between two and 30 minutes on 43 further occasions by January 2019.

Ms Tijani’s appeal against dismissal was rejected – even disregarding times she was two minutes late, there was still no significant improvement.

The Employment Tribunal rejected the claim even though it did not have access to the disciplinary policy. The Tribunal took into account the live final written warning for the same misconduct. Even though Ms Tijani was on occasion only late by a few mnutes, those incidences should not be ignored.

The Employment Appeals Tribunal concluded that the tribunal was entitled to form the conclusion that it did as to the reasonableness of dismissal, even if the disciplinary procedure was missing. The employer was entitled to expect punctuality.

This case is a reminder that even minor misconduct or performance issues can result in a fair dismissal if a fair procedure is followed. Some employers will not be concerned by occasional or even habitual lateness as long as the work gets done. Employers are however entitled to require punctuality if they so choose.

Despite this decision, all employers would be wise however to have a comprehensive written disciplinary policy in place.

James Carmody

Reculver Solicitors 0207 118 0950