In cases of persistent short-term intermittent absence, it is often hard to predict if attendance will improve. Where there are persistent short-term absences and no underlying health condition, a medical expert is unlikely to be able to predict with any more certainty than a manager when the employee is likely to show a sustained improvement in attendance. For this reason, the role of the medical evidence may differ, depending on the nature of the absence. 

However, before making the decision to dismiss, the employer must have made it clear to the employee what level of attendance is expected; allow the employee time to improve and the opportunity to make representations.  The EAT in the case of Lyncock v Cereal Packaging [1988] IRLR 510 set out the factors an employer should consider in such cases. The employee was dismissed on the grounds of a poor attendance record over several years and the EAT stated that the dismissal on grounds of capability was ‘fair’ and in making such a decision an employer must consider the following:

• the nature of the illness;

• the likelihood of its recurrence or of some other illness arising;

• the length of the absences;

• the extent to which the internal procedure in dealing with such absences has been followed;

• the level of consultation with the employee throughout the period of absences; and

• the extent to which the position has been made clear to the employee, dismissal being the ultimate course of action, should there not be a substantial improvement in attendance over a given time period.

Although an employee should be warned that their absence may lead to dismissal, genuine illness should not be treated as a disciplinary issue.  The employer should handle each case individually in a sympathetic and compassionate manner.

In some cases, there may be an underlying health condition which has led to short-term absences.  In such circumstances, the employer should ensure that medical evidence is sought and then follow the steps for long-term absence.