For advice on avoiding unfair dismissals, disciplinary procedures, or employment tribunals, contact our team of expert employment law and HR lawyers on 01332 226 155 or fill in the form below.
Conveyancing
Explore All ConveyancingCriminal Defence
Explore All Criminal DefenceEstate Planning
Explore All Estate PlanningEstate Administraion
Explore All Estate AdministraionDispute Resolution
Explore All Dispute ResolutionFamily & Matrimonial
Explore All Family & MatrimonialMotoring & Driving Offences
Explore All Motoring & Driving OffencesResidential Property
Explore All Residential PropertyResidential Property Disputes
Explore All Residential Property DisputesWills, Trusts & Estate Disputes
Explore All Wills, Trusts & Estate DisputesAgriculture
Explore All AgricultureBusiness Recovery
Explore All Business RecoveryCharities & social enterprises
Explore All Charities & social enterprisesCommercial Disputes
Explore All Commercial DisputesCommercial Law & Contracts
Explore All Commercial Law & ContractsCommercial Property
Explore All Commercial PropertyCorporate & Finance
Explore All Corporate & FinanceData Protection
Explore All Data ProtectionDebt Services
Explore All Debt ServicesEcclesiastical Law
Explore All Ecclesiastical LawEducation Law
Explore All Education LawEmployment Law
Explore All Employment LawFamily Businesses
Explore All Family BusinessesFinance Dispute Resolution
Explore All Finance Dispute ResolutionFinancial & Business Crime
Explore All Financial & Business CrimeInsurance Litigation
Explore All Insurance LitigationIntellectual Property
Explore All Intellectual PropertyLicensing
Explore All LicensingRegulatory & Corporate Defence
Explore All Regulatory & Corporate Defence
The dismissal of a cleaner by the House of Commons Commission was challenged at a tribunal, with the excuse that the same rules were not applied to colleagues.
29 September 2022
Case Study
In the recent case of Tijani -v- House of Commons Commission, the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the original tribunal decision that an employee’s dismissal for persistent lateness was fair. This decision came even though there was no disciplinary policy and procedure included in the evidence.
The employee worked as a cleaner until her dismissal in 2019 for persistent lateness, with these instances continuing even after formal warnings about her tardiness. The final written warning was noted by the EAT in making its decision, as was the position that poor timekeeping is generally deemed as misconduct. The lateness was often only a minute or two, but the Tribunal accepted the respondent’s submission that it is incumbent on employees to arrive on time and ready to work. The employee’s argument that comparable colleagues were treated more favourably than her was not found to be supported with evidence. The EAT considered the fact that, strangely, it did not have a copy of the disciplinary policy but did not deem this to affect the fairness of the dismissal.
Case Study
The appeal was rejected by the EAT, and amongst other conclusions it held that:
The takeaways from this case are that errors like not disclosing the relevant policy are unlikely to impact the overall fairness of a dismissal. Persistent lateness is a conduct issue given the inherent expectation for employees to be ready to work on time; and dismissal is more likely to be viewed as fair where clear disciplinary warnings due to lateness have been previously given.
For advice on avoiding unfair dismissals, disciplinary procedures, or employment tribunals, contact our team of expert employment law and HR lawyers on 01332 226 155 or fill in the form below.
Related Services


The Court of Appeal has provided important guidance on the enforceability of training repayment clauses in employment contracts.
Read More

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has clarified when employers may be deemed to have knowledge of an employee's disability.
Read More

Download our probationary period resource pack to help prepare for the Employment Rights Act changes from January 2027.
Read More

An employer's failure to involve an employee in an investigation led to findings of disability discrimination and compensation.
Read More

The EAT highlights the limits of protected conversations and the risks employers face when discussions are handled incorrectly.
Read More

Employer ordered to pay over £264,000 after a reference referring to an ongoing dispute was found to amount to victimisation.
Read More

Download expert guidance on UK trade union reforms and prepare your organisation for Employment Rights Act changes.
Read More

EAT confirms endometriosis can be a disability and examines reasonable adjustments, dismissal risks and performance management issues for employers.
Read More

EAT confirms withdrawing a conditional job offer can breach contract with employers understanding when an offer is binding and notice applies.
Read More

EAT confirms leaving transferred staff on inferior terms can amount to indirect discrimination, even under TUPE.
Read More

EAT confirms dismissal must be based on the employer’s actual reason, not a substitute. Incorrect reasoning can make dismissal unfair.
Read More

EAT finds dismissal unfair in Milrine v DHL (2026). Key lessons for employers on appeal processes and reducing tribunal risk.
Read MoreScroll to next section
Scroll back to the top
