Man Who Was Fired After Taking 808 Sick Days Wins Tribunal

A man who was fired from his job at Jaguar Land Rover after racking up 808 sick days has won his legal claim for unfair dismissal.

Launch manager Jon Carter conducted a company employment review of Rumbold in 2018 where he estimated the cost of the 808 sick days as 'around £100,000' and told him: "When we look at your enthusiasm to come back, it is not there."

Carter told the tribunal: "Honestly, worst absence record I have ever seen.

"Eight hundred and eight shifts, price to organisation is almost £100,000.

"There is not one year since 2000 with full attendance record."

Rumbold was told he was fired in December 2018 on the grounds of 'conduct and capability'.

But Tribunal Judge Johnson ruled in his report that Jaguar Land Rover didn't properly apply Attendance Management Procedures and said the company 'had not reasonably reached a stage under that process where they could consider dismissal'.

He went on to say the company should have 'reached a stage where the claimant could have been issued with counselling or a warning concerning his absences and the need for improvement to avoid further sanction'.

Rumbold began to suffer with hip problems in 2018 and was diagnosed with a chronic pain condition called avascular necrosis disease - as a result he was absent from work between 12 March to 13 August.

He was also due to get a hip replacement operation, which would have left him unable to work for a further 12 weeks.

When Jaguar Land Rover were informed of his problems, the company offered him trials for alterative roles - one of which involved logging car registration numbers and could be done while seated.

However, he only did this job for a week.

He then worked as a 'sealer' which involved him having to walk around the cars - he claimed he was told he couldn't use a walking stick in case he damaged the cars' paintwork.

The tribunal judge said Rumbold should have been allowed to complete his trial in the seated role and that his doctor's note should have been considered.

The judge said: "Had Mr Carter properly considered what was the latest medical advice available - and which he had access to at the time of the employment review, he would have been able to consider whether these relatively simple measures could be accommodated into the claimant's trial role, to enable him to complete the trial and to enable the respondent whether a return to a full upstanding role was possible."

A figure for compensation has not yet been decided.