Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Terence Slattery

Health Services Executive

Representatives

Gerard Kennedy, SIPTU

 Represented by Management

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00047546-001

08/12/2021

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00047546-002

08/12/2021

Mr Slattery worked as a theatre porter in Limerick University Hospital (UL Hospital) from January 1999.  He was dismissed because of his failure to attend work regularly over an extended period.  He was dismissed at the end of the HSE’s disciplinary process on September 28th 2020; however, the termination of his employment was finalised only at the end of an appeal of the decision to dismiss him on June 24th 2021.

Due to his high level of absenteeism, between 2017 and 2019, Mr Slattery progressed through the HSE’s disciplinary procedure.  He was dismissed on September 28th 2020 by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the UL Hospital Group.  He appealed against the decision to dismiss him to the Disciplinary Appeals Committee and to the CEO of the HSE; however, his dismissal was not overturned.

Progress Through the HSE Disciplinary Procedure

Less than two years into his employment with the HSE, in July 2001, Mr Slattery received a final verbal warning because of his absence.  The HSE’s submission listed eight formal warnings issued between 2013 and 2019, resulting in a stage 4 hearing in October 2019 at which Mr Slattery was offered a final chance to address his absence problem.  He was referred to the occupational health service, but he failed to attend the appointments.  As part of the absence management policy, the managers engaged with Mr Slattery on an informal basis to identify any possible underlying reason that caused his high level of absence.  Mr Slattery was advised to attend the HSE Employee Assistance Programme, but he did not avail of this service.

Following the issuing of a final written warning under stage 3 of the HSE’s disciplinary procedure on November 16th 2018, Mr Slattery had nine unauthorised absences, 15 self-certified absences and one certified absence.  At a disciplinary hearing on October 31st 2019, his poor attendance was reviewed and he was given a final chance with the following conditions:

1.           He was to have no further unauthorised absences or uncertified sick leave;

2.           He was to report on and off duty to his immediate supervisor;

3.           He was to avail of the services of the Employee Assistance Programme.

Mr Slattery was absent again following this warning, and a number of his absences were uncertified.  He did not report on and off duty to his supervisor and he did not contact the Employee Assistance Programme.

Mr Slattery did not attend a stage four disciplinary meeting arranged for September 25th 2020, although he confirmed the day before that he would attend.  The meeting went ahead and Mr Slattery was dismissed on September 28th.

Mr Slattery appealed against his dismissal and he remained on the payroll until the conclusion of that process on June 24th 2021.  At the appeal committee hearings, Mr Slattery disclosed that he was struggling with a specific health condition, but this had not been disclosed previously.  The outcome from the appeal was a decision to uphold the CEO’s decision of September 2020 that Mr Slattery should be dismissed.  On July 7th 2021, Mr Kennedy of SIPTU submitted a final “mercy appeal” referred to as an “Ad Misericordium” appeal to Mr Paul Reid, then CEO of the HSE.  This is provided for in the HSE’s disciplinary procedure.  On August 25th 2022, the head of corporate affairs of the HSE wrote to Mr Kennedy to inform him that Mr Slattery’s plea for mercy was unsuccessful.

The Reason for Dismissing Mr Slattery

Mr Slattery was dismissed because he failed to comply with the conditions agreed at stage 4 of the disciplinary procedure on October 31st 2019.  In their submission, the HSE managers said that the organisation provided unlimited support to Mr Slattery and gave him chances to deal with his attendance problem.  Regrettably, Mr Slattery continued to have very poor attendance which impacted on the service the hospital is required to provide to patients.

The HSE’s Case that the Dismissal of Mr Slattery was Not Unfair

The HSE’s case is that Mr Slattery was dismissed at the end of a long process of managing his attendance through the organisation’s disciplinary procedure.   Throughout his 21 years of employment with the HSE, Mr Slattery had been at several disciplinary stages and he had disregarded the policies and procedures that underpin the organisation’s processes.  He was always aware that a failure to address his attendance problem would result in dismissal.

Arising from his failure to deal with his absences, Mr Slattery was progressed through all the stages of the HSE’s disciplinary procedure.  He remained on full pay while he was on administrative leave after he was dismissed on September 28th 2020 until the outcome of his appeal in June 2021.

The HSE has exhausted all the possible processes to provide support to Mr Slattery to enable him to attend work regularly.  The management submitted that Mr Slattery’s claim that he was unfairly dismissed is not well founded.

Evidence of the HR Business Partner, Ms Valerie Enright

Ms Enright explained the sequence of disciplinary interventions that run from stage one to four.  A table in the respondent’s submission showed the number of times that the procedure was invoked in relation to Mr Slattery’s absence.  The procedure that ended with his dismissal commenced on June 18th 2018, when he was issued with a stage 1 warning, a verbal warning which was on his file for six months.  However, due to his continued poor attendance, in August that year, Mr Slattery was issued with a stage 2 written warning which was placed on his file for nine months.  With no improvement in his attendance, Mr Slattery moved to stage 3 of the process and was issued with a final written warning in November 2018.  In May 2019, he was told he was being moved to stage 4; however, on October 31st 2019, having considered his circumstances at a stage 4 hearing, the CEO decided not to dismiss him.  It was agreed that Mr Slattery’s line manager would closely monitor his attendance and other conditions were put in place which have been set out on page 2 of this document.  When he did not adhere to the conditions, Mr Slattery’s file was referred back to the CEO for a revised hearing at stage 4.  Mr Slattery did not attend the hearing and he was dismissed on September 28th 2020.

Following his dismissal, Mr Slattery attended a remote meeting of the Disciplinary Appeals Committee on March 29th 2021 and an in-person hearing on May 11th 2021.  The decision to dismiss him was not overturned by the Appeals Committee.  On July 13th 2021, on behalf of Mr Slattery, Mr Kennedy appealed to the CEO of the HSE in a mercy appeal.  Ms Enright said that this appeal was to be carried out as a review of the documents only, and a hearing was not envisaged.  In August 2022, Mr Kennedy was informed that the appeal to the CEO was not successful.

In response to Mr Kennedy’s submission, Ms Enright said that the original decision of the UL Hospital CEO in October 2019 was that Ms Slattery should be given a chance to address his absence problem.  Conditions were to be met by Mr Slattery and managed by local managers.  It is evident from this treatment, that the decision to dismiss Mr Slattery was not pre-determined.  Ms Enright said that Mr Slattery was familiar with the disciplinary process over a period of more than 20 years and his dismissal did not come as a shock.  Ms Enright reiterated the hospital’s position that Mr Slattery never mentioned his health problem until the appeal stage of the process, by which time he had been dismissed.

Ms Enright said that it was her understanding that, when he told his shop steward on September 25th 2020 that he wouldn’t be at the disciplinary meeting, he said that he couldn’t come to the meeting because he couldn’t face losing his job.  He repeated this at the hearing of his appeal.

Ms Enright said that the hospital does not take a decision to dismiss an employee lightly and that Mr Slattery was offered many opportunities to address his absence problem.

Evidence of Mr Niamh O’Grady, Operations Services Manager

Ms O’Grady described the job of theatre porter and the complex of nine operating theatres in UL Hospital.  Over the years, she said that Mr Slattery had a pattern of ringing in sick or just not coming to work and this had a knock-on effect by delaying patient movements in and out of the theatres.

In 2018 and 2019, Mr Slattery was moved out of the theatre complex to the general hospital, but his attendance did not improve.  His absence impacted on other staff.

Ms O’Grady said that she met Mr Slattery during the final stages of the disciplinary process, in the company of his line manager.  She said that they had an open and frank discussion and that Mr Slattery said that he had a problem with his hands and that he may require surgery.  He was anxious about being on sick leave and not being paid, and Ms O’Grady said that she assured him that the hospital would support him if he was absent for surgery.  His attendance did not improve.  Ms O’Grady said that Mr Slattery never mentioned having a different health problem and that it was only at the appeal of his dismissal, that this condition raised.  Ms O’Grady said that, to her knowledge, Mr Slattery never engaged with the HSE’s Employee Assistance Programme.

Cross-examining of Ms O’Grady

In response to questions from Mr Kennedy, Ms O’Grady said that she met Mr Slattery when he was at the final written warning stage of the disciplinary procedure, in late 2018 or early 2019.  She said that she didn’t meet him between October 2019 and September 2020, when he was dismissed.

Mr Kennedy referred to the letter issued by Ms O’Grady on July 13th 2020, in which she expressed her view that he should be dismissed.  Ms O’Grady said that she based her recommendation on the fact that Mr Slattery’s absence was having an impact on the ability of the theatres to provide a service to patients.  She said that the decision to dismiss Mr Slattery was taken by the CEO and that it was not her decision.

On behalf of Mr Slattery, Mr Kennedy summarised the facts surrounding his dismissal which were in line with the facts provided by the HSE.  There is little or no dispute about the chronology of events that led to the termination of Mr Slattery’s employment, following his unsuccessful appeal in June 2021.  Mr Kennedy provided some background to the stage 4 disciplinary meeting which was held on September 25th 2020.

On the morning that the disciplinary meeting was scheduled, Mr Slattery contacted his shop steward to tell him that he was unwell and that he would be unable to attend the meeting.  The shop steward contacted Mr Slattery’s full time union official who, in turn, contacted the head of HR in UL Hospital.  The CEO decided to proceed with the meeting and a letter of dismissal was issued on September 28th.  Mr Slattery was due to be removed from the payroll on that day, however, SIPTU invoked the appeals procedure and “a stay of execution” was imposed on the decision to stop paying Mr Slattery’s wages.  He was removed again from the payroll in November 2020, but was reinstated in December and the HSE continued to pay his wages until the outcome of the appeal hearing on June 24th 2021.  However, while his wages were reinstated, the HSE stopped paying subscriptions to the superannuation scheme.

SIPTU lodged the “mercy appeal” in July 2021 and, although this was acknowledged by Mr Reid’s office the following day, a decision regarding the appeal was not sent to the union until 13 months later, in August 2022.  During the appeals to the Disciplinary Appeals Committee and to Mr Reid’s office, SIPTU confirmed that Mr Slattery is suffering from a health condition and that this was the major contributing factor to his poor attendance.

SIPTU’s Case that the Dismissal of Mr Slattery was Unfair

In Mr Kennedy’s submission, he said that the union accepts that Mr Slattery’s attendance over many years has been less than satisfactory.  However, his attendance was affected by his illness.  Mr Slattery has struggled with accepting that he has this problem and this has caused significant personal and family problems and has affected his ability to attend work.  Mr Kennedy accepted that Mr Slattery’s health condition was not formally presented as a cause of his absenteeism until the appeal stage of his dismissal, but he argued that this does not diminish the fact that, when he was dismissed, the HSE was aware of the nature and extent of his problem.  Mr Kennedy said that the HSE could have offered Mr Kennedy the support and help that would be expected from the State’s healthcare provider, but they did not do so.

The fact that the HSE believed that there were substantive grounds to justify Mr Slattery’s dismissal does not excuse their abandonment of fair procedures and natural justice.  Mr Kennedy asked me to consider the importance of Statutory Instrument 146 of 2000, the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures, which, at section 4(6) sets out the right of an employee to expect a fair and impartial determination of the facts.  Given the contents of the letter from the CEO on September 28th 2020, Mr Kennedy suggested that the necessary levels of impartiality were absent from the decision-making process.  Mr Kennedy said that the CEO’s decision was tainted by bias and was pre-determined.  In this regard, He referred to the decision of the Labour Court in RCI Call Centre Ireland Limited and Ibrahim Salah[1], where the Court observed that the lead investigator and the manager who conducted the disciplinary hearing were previously involved at different stages of other disciplinary proceedings concerning Mr Salah.  The Court found that Mr Salah’s dismissal was unfair.

As an example of further procedural irregularities, Mr Kennedy said that, on July 13th 2020, Mr Slattery’s line manager wrote to a HR business partner with a recommendation to reconvene stage 4 of the disciplinary procedure and to dismiss Mr Slattery.  The HR business partner attended both of the stage 4 meetings with Mr Slattery’s line manager.  This irregularity is compounded by the fact that the decision to dismiss Mr Slattery was taken after a meeting at which neither he nor his union representative were present.  This was in contravention of two of the principles of natural justice; the right to be heard and the right to be represented.  In the decision of the Labour Court in the case of Philip Smith and Mark Leddy[2], the Court noted that the right to be heard is a principle of natural justice which is protected by the Constitution.  It is a protection against arbitrariness and the imposition of a penalty without due process.

Also on this principle, Mr Kennedy referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Glover v BLN Limited[3], where the dismissal was found to be wrongful because of the employer’s failure to offer Mr Glover an opportunity to defend himself against charges of misconduct.  Finding in favour of Mr Glover, Mr Justice Walsh stated that “The obligation to give a fair hearing to the guilty is just a great as the obligation to give a fair hearing to the innocent.”

It is the union’s case that the dismissal of Mr Slattery is tainted by a lack of procedural fairness that is necessary in a disciplinary process.  Mr Kennedy also argued that the appeal to the CEO of the HSE lacked any semblance of a fair process and that the way it was dealt with suggests that it was considered as an afterthought.

Mr Kennedy referred to section 6(7) of the Unfair Dismissals Act which addresses the requirement of an employer to have regard to its own disciplinary procedures or to accepted procedures such as Statutory Instrument 146 of 2000 which has been referred to earlier.  I will deal with the obligations on an employer under this section of the 1977 Act in the next section under the heading “Findings and Conclusions.”  Mr Kennedy argued that a reasonable application of this section to the conduct of the HSE must lead me to find that the dismissal of Mr Kennedy was unfair.

Concluding his submission on behalf of Mr Slattery, Mr Kennedy said that he will not dispute Mr Slattery’s absence record. He said however, that the HSE must establish a genuine reason for dismissing Mr Slattery and that the decision must meet a standard of fairness.

Mr Kennedy referred to the stage 4 disciplinary hearing in October 2019, at which the management set out a clear description of what was expected of Mr Slattery.  He said that the fact that there was no contact with Mr Slattery from October 2019 until September 2020 results in a tainting of the procedures. 

On September 25th 2020, Mr Kennedy said that he informed a member of the HR department that Mr Slattery was unwell, but the CEO went ahead with the scheduled meeting in his absence and he was dismissed the following Monday.  Mr Kennedy argued that the right to be heard is fundamental and that there was nothing to prevent the CEO from re-convening the disciplinary meeting.  Mr Slattery had no opportunity to be represented by his trade union.

Regarding the appeal to the CEO of the HSE, Mr Kennedy said that the union had no opportunity to test the arguments submitted as part of the appeal, and that there was no correspondence between the CEO and the union regarding Mr Slattery’s case.  Between July 2021 and August 2022, there was no communication from the office of the CEO and, in the end, the decision that Mr Slattery’s mercy appeal was unsuccessful was communicated by a member of the corporate HR team.

Mr Kennedy argued that Mr Slattery’s dismissal was unfair from a procedural perspective.  He said that Mr Slattery never intended to cause any upset to his employer and it has taken his dismissal to motivate him to get treatment for his health condition.

Mr Slattery did not give evidence in support of his complaint that his dismissal was unfair.

The Legal Framework

Section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (“the Act”) provides that,

Subject to the provisions of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal, unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.

It is apparent from this that every dismissal is unfair until the employer demonstrates otherwise.  The burden of proof therefore rests with the HSE to establish the substantial grounds justifying Mr Slattery’s dismissal.

Section 6(4)(b) of the Act provides that,

…the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act not to be an unfair dismissal if it results wholly or mainly from …the conduct of the employee.

While the responsibility for proving that a dismissal is not unfair rests with the employer, the legislation recognises the right of an employer to dismiss an employee for conduct that, considered by another reasonable employer in the same circumstances, is unacceptable or unreasonable[4].  I have considered the evidence submitted by the HSE regarding its efforts to avoid dismissing Mr Slattery and to encourage him to attend work regularly.  Intermittent absence is an affliction and a drain in any employment.  In the context of a hospital, a missing employee causes stress and additional work for others and, apart from the cost, their absence results in demoralisation and unfairness in their area of work.  It is my view that, having offered him a final chance in October 2019, it was reasonable for the hospital CEO to dismiss Mr Slattery in September 2020.  Between March and September 2020, when he was dismissed, the HSE was in the throes of trying to manage Covid-19 and it would have been extremely difficult to engage with Mr Slattery to encourage him to come to work every day.  No evidence was presented by Mr Slattery that he sought assistance and that it wasn’t offered or provided.  Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that, confronted with a similar level of absenteeism as that faced by the Hospital CEO in September 2020, another reasonable employer would have dismissed Mr Slattery.

Was the Process Fair?

On behalf of Mr Slattery, Mr Kennedy submitted that his dismissal was unfair because, he argued, the procedures that ended with his dismissal were unfair.  Mr Kennedy referred to section 6(7) of the 1977 Act which emphasises the importance of fair procedures:

(7) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, in determining if a dismissal is an unfair dismissal, regard may be had, if the adjudication officer or the Labour Court, as the case may be, considers it appropriate to do so -

(a) to the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct (whether by act or omission) of the employer in relation to the dismissal, and

(b) to the extent (if any) of the compliance or failure to comply by the employer, in relation to the employee, with the procedure referred to in section 14(1) of this Act or with the provisions of any code of practice referred to in paragraph (d) (inserted by the Unfair Dismissals (Amendment) Act, 1993) of section 7(2) of this Act.

Section 14(1) refers to the obligation on an employer to provide an employee with a written copy of the procedure that will be used “before and for the purpose of dismissing the employee.”  A copy of this procedure was included in the union’s book of documents at the hearing of this complaint and Mr Slattery raised no concern about his access to the disciplinary procedure.  Section 7(2)(d) provides that I must consider if the HSE followed the standard of fairness set out in the Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures which is documented in Statutory Instrument 146 of 2000.  This provides that an employer who is contemplating the dismissal of an employee must,

1.           Present the employee with the details of the allegations causing them to be at risk of dismissal;

2.           Give the employee an opportunity to respond to the allegations;

3.           Give the employee the right to be represented at disciplinary meetings;

4.           Take account of the employee’s responses to the allegations in a fair and impartial manner, consider any relevant information or evidence and consider any submissions made by or on behalf of the employee;

5.           Provide an opportunity for the employee to appeal against a disciplinary sanction to a manager not involved in the initial decision.

Mr Kennedy argued that the letter issued by the CEO on September 28th 2020 indicates that her decision was tainted by bias and was pre-determined.  The following is the full text of the letter from the CEO in which she confirmed to Mr Slattery that he was dismissed:

“Dear Mr Slattery

I refer to the Stage 4 Disciplinary Hearing which was convened for today, the 25th of September 2020 at 11.00am and I note your non-attendance at this hearing.  In your absence, a decision has been made based on the information presented to me.

As you are aware, there has been a long litany of correspondence and engagement with your Supervisors and Management concerning your obligations and your poor attendance.  In addition, offers of Employee Assistance Supports have not been taken up by you.  At the last Disciplinary Hearing on the 31st of October 2019, you were provided with a last chance on the following conditions:

§  That there are no further unauthorised absences from work or uncertified sick leave;

§  You report on and off duty to your immediate Supervisor;

§  You make immediate arrangements to avail of the Employee Assistance Programme, as a matter of priority.

It is regrettable that you have failed to comply with any of the above conditions that were offered to you on a last-chance basis.  Since the last Disciplinary Hearing, you have reverted to the same pattern of poor attendance and have failed to comply with the HSE Managing Attendance Policy and have on numerous occasions failed to make contact with your Line Manager.

As an employer, we have provided unlimited opportunities of support and chances for you to make the necessary improvements to fulfil your contractual obligations.

In light of the above, I wish to advise that you are dismissed from your employment with the HSE with immediate effect.  You are requested to return any Hospital property, such as your ID badge and uniform that is still in your possession, to your Line Manager.

Arrangements have been made to remove you from the SAP payroll system.

You have the right to appeal this decision to a Committee comprising of a person selected from a nominated panel that has been agreed between the HSE and the Health Service Unions.

Your appeal must be forwarded in writing within 14 days of being notified of this dismissal decision.

Yours sincerely, Etc.”

I find no evidence of bias in this letter.  I note that, in her letter of October 31st 2019, after she set out the “last chance conditions” to Mr Slattery, the CEO said,

“If there is any further deviation from normal accepted attendance patterns, Stage 4 will be immediately activated and the Disciplinary Procedure will be deemed exhausted at this stage and it will be my unequivocal decision to revisit the termination of your employment.”

It is clear from this that the CEO was hopeful that she would not arrive at a position where she would be dismissing Mr Slattery, but that she would “revisit” the situation if the conditions were not met.

Mr Kennedy suggested that bias or pre-determination arises from the letter of July 13th 2020 from Ms O’Grady to the HR business partner with a recommendation to re-convene the stage 4 disciplinary hearing and to dismiss Mr Slattery.  While Ms O’Grady did not dismiss Mr Slattery, as his line manager, it is my view that she was the person best-placed to determine if he had met the conditions in the CEO’s letter of October 31st 2019.  It was not unreasonable therefore, for her to recommend Mr Slattery’s dismissal in the circumstances in which he was unwilling or unable to attend work regularly.  Unlike the circumstances in the case of Ibrahim Salah (footnote 1), Mr Slattery was dismissed due to absenteeism and not as a result of misconduct.  No investigation was required into Mr Slattery’s absence because the record was available and he previously attended a stage 4 hearing at which he had an opportunity to explain the reasons for his absences.  I am satisfied that no bias arises from the presence of Ms O’Grady at both stage 4 hearings.

Mr Kennedy argued that two of the fundamental principles of natural justice were not followed when the stage 4 hearing reached a conclusion without hearing Mr Slattery’s case and without his union having an opportunity to represent him.  I note from the documents that Mr Slattery was advised on August 28th 2020 that he was expected to attend a stage 4 hearing on September 25th, which was adequate notice for him and his shop steward to prepare for the meeting.  In her evidence, the HR business partner, Ms Enright, said that she was informed on September 25th that Mr Slattery would not attend the hearing because he expected to be dismissed and that he couldn’t face the prospect.  I find that the fact that Mr Slattery did not attend the final stage 4 meeting did not result in any unfairness, because he had presented his case adequately at the first stage 4 meeting in October 2019.  Also, any failure to allow him an opportunity to state his case was remedied by the comprehensiveness of the appeal hearing which took place remotely on March 29th and in-person on May 11th 2021.   

In relation to the delay delivering the outcome of the mercy appeal, in the context of the cyber-attack on the HSE in May 2021 and the continuing challenges of managing Covid-19, it is understandable that it took some time to reply to Mr Slattery’s final appeal.  I find that no additional information was submitted to the CEO to cause his to change the outcome of the findings of the Disciplinary Appeals Committee.

Conclusion

In the case under consideration here, Mr Slattery was dismissed because he was absent too often for a variety of reasons.  Over the years of his employment, he was informed in writing that he would be dismissed if his attendance did not improve.  He was accompanied at meetings and he appealed against the decision to dismiss him.  He was offered the services of an employee assistance programme, but he did not take up the offer of help.  The forbearance shown to Mr Slattery could have led to an impression that he might never be dismissed.  Other employees, however, might have appreciated the tolerance offered and made an effort to improve.

Having examined all the circumstances, it is my view that the decision of the HSE to dismiss Mr Slattery was a decision that would have been taken by another reasonable employer in the same circumstances. I also find that the process that ended with his dismissal was a fair process.

I have found that the decision of the respondent to dismiss Mr Slattery in the circumstances was reasonable and I also find that the process was fair.  On this basis, I have decided that his complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act is not well founded.

Mr Slattery claims that he was dismissed without notice and that he is entitled to pay in lieu of notice, based on his service with the HSE since January 1999.

At the hearing, the management side said that they reviewed Mr Slattery’s claim for notice pay and that, based on his service of more than 20 years, he would be paid eight weeks’ pay in lieu of notice. 

I am satisfied that the HSE has conceded that Mr Slattery is entitled to pay in lieu of notice.

I decide that this complaint is well founded and I note that, at the hearing on September 7th 2022, the HSE management agreed to pay Mr Slattery eight weeks’ basic pay in lieu of notice of the termination of his employment on June 24th 2021.

Dismissal, absenteeism, appeal, fair procedures