A summer holiday of sun, sea and…the sack and reinstatement.

When Elena booked a one-week sunshine break to visit her family in Morrocco, she expected nothing more dramatic than sunshine, good food and a break from her job as a customer care coordinator.

She’d originally asked for two weeks off, but her manager refused the extra week, so she was forced to take a seven-day break instead. But on the last day of her annual leave, everything changed.

Elena suffered severe food poisoning, became seriously ill, and was rushed to hospital where she spent four days. She was weak, frightened and miles from home.

Her husband called and informed work she was unwell, and unable to return as planned. It’s fair to say the reaction to this was completely unexpected.

While Elena was still in a hospital bed, she received an email from her manager. Not a message asking how she was. Not a message checking she was safe.

Instead, it accused her of failing to follow the company’s policy for reporting an absence  - which required the employee to phone in personally - and questioned whether her illness was genuine, simply because she had originally asked for two weeks off, was only granted one, and would now be off for two anyway.

Elena, who had worked for her employer for three years, replied straight away.

She apologised, explained she was too ill to phone in herself, and even sent a photo of herself lying in a hospital bed.  The response she received was angry, blunt and cruel.

Her manager said a disciplinary hearing had already taken place without her, that it had found she failed to report her absence in line with company policy and had acted dishonestly, and that her contract was being terminated as a result.

By the time Elena had recovered and made it back home, it was just over a week later than planned.

She felt shocked, appalled and genuinely aggrieved, and she was convinced that what had happened to her amounted to an unfair dismissal.

Elena discussed the matter with her brother, a former HR advisor. He assured her that the way she had been dismissed was unfair, did not comply with the ACAS Code of Practice, and advised her to contact us.

As a result, Elena got in touch with our Employee Support Centre and was put in contact with one of our trade union representatives. He was shocked, though not surprised, by the way she had been treated, because he had seen it all before.

The first thing he did was email the employer to confirm that Elena wished to submit a disciplinary appeal on the basis that the decision to dismiss her was grossly unfair. She had not been informed of her right to appeal in the dismissal email.

Even when it’s glaringly obvious that a decision to dismiss someone is unfair, our representatives still make sure that this is spelled out clearly and firmly at a hearing.

Elena exercised her statutory right to be accompanied at her disciplinary appeal hearing, and she was supported by our trade union representative, who presented her case on her behalf.

In a detailed and strong presentation, he made it absolutely clear that both the process and the outcome were extremely unfair.

He explained to that Elena had never been invited to a disciplinary hearing, had never been told she had the right to be accompanied at a hearing, and had never been given any evidence, all of which are basic requirements under the ACAS Code.

It was also highlighted that Elena’s illness was genuine and supported by medical records he had advised her to obtain from the hospital. Those records also helped explain why she was unable to follow the company’s policy and call in sick herself.

Every flaw in the process and every unfair aspect of the decision was laid out plainly.

Our trade union representative reminded the employer that employment tribunals have repeatedly found dismissals to be unfair when the procedure itself is unfair, exactly the situation in Elena’s case. The fact that tribunals can order a 25 per cent uplift in cases where an employer fails to follow the ACAS Code was also highlighted.

Elena’s preferred outcome was reinstatement, and after the appeal was heard, her appeal was upheld. She was allowed to return to work.