Emergency leave dismissal

Case 3: the facts

Street lighting engineer Mr Cortest told his employer that he needed to take a month off work to care for his three children. His employer said if he wanted that much time off he would have to resign, but that if there was work available he would be re-engaged at the end of the month. As a result, Cortest’s employment came to an end and he claimed he had been automatically unfairly dismissed for exercising his right to time off under section 57A of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The ruling

The EAT held that time off to deal with family emergencies is limited to the amount of time needed to deal with an unforeseen event. In this case, it would be for time off to make alternative care arrangements, not for the Cortest to care for his children himself for a month. The leave he had requested did not therefore meet the definition of emergency leave under section 57A, so his dismissal could not be automatically unfair as a result.