Dependency leave

Case 12: The facts

Mr Uzowuru was granted three weeks' dependency leave, later extended by a further two weeks, to visit his sick mother in Nigeria. Nine months later, he had not returned to work, and his employer issued disciplinary proceedings which resulted in his dismissal.

Uzowuru said his dismissal was automatically unfair because it related to the exercise of his right to dependency leave. He also claimed that it amounted to victimisation because it resulted from complaints of race discrimination that he had raised two years previously.

The ruling

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that the right to dependency leave was limited to the time needed to deal with emergency situations requiring relatively short periods of absence. The time that Uzowuru had taken was not "reasonable in the circumstances" and therefore was not covered by the right to dependency leave.

The EAT also rejected Uzowuru's claim that his dismissal was victimisation, finding no evidence to link it to his previous complaints.

Uzowuru v LB Tower Hamlets UKEAT/0869/04