Dedicated dog-owner unfairly dismissed from takeaway job

Thursday 06 September 2018

A takeaway delivery driver had to make more than just puppy-dog eyes to prove that he was unfairly dismissed after taking two weeks off work give his pup eye drops.

Jonathan Blood, former delivery driver for Thai takeaway the Dicq Shack, was awarded over £1,500 in compensation after the Employment Tribunal ruled that he was unfairly dismissed after taking a fortnight off to look after his paw-ly pooch.

Prior to his dismissal, it was noted that Mr Blood was often late for his shifts and would occasionally mis-record the hours he had worked on his timesheets. Mr Blood denied doing this.

This January, Mr Blood’s dog (name and breed unknown) became very ill and the vet prescribed eye drops to be given to the pet every two hours.

As Mr Blood had to make sure his dog got his medicine, he failed to work any shifts for the next two weeks. The Tribunal was told that he would inform his bosses, Mark and Elaine Peel, each day via text that he wouldn’t be able to work.

Pictured: Jonathan Blood filed an unfair dismissal claim after he took two weeks off work to make sure his sick dog got his eye drops.

After Mr Blood was told by the vet that his dog’s eye treatment could be discontinued, he got back in touch with his employers, but was later sent a text message from Mrs Peel telling him that “it is not working out." She said she had received "complaints from customers" about delivery times and that his time keeping issues made her “on edge”.

"You know I am not the kind of person to just let someone go but I have two [sic] this time. I have jiggled things around hell of a lot lately to the point it affects everything. I was waiting to your reply yesterday and never received one as I am on edge if you are coming in all the time. Competition is rife, sales are down and the last thing the business needs is for it to decline furthermore. It reflects on everyone working at the Dicq," she wrote, adding that there were "no hard feelings."

A subsequent letter to Mr Blood from Social Security said that he was fired from the takeaway “due to time keeping and absence without reasonable cause.”

Pictured: The Employment Tribunal ruled that Mr Blood was unfairly dismissed from the Peels' popular Thai restaurant, based at the Dicq beach.

Mr Blood brought a claim against his former employers, as he felt he had been dismissed for taking time off to look after his dog and not because of his time keeping.

The Employment Tribunal ultimately ruled in favour of Mr Blood, although it did acknowledge that he could have made other arrangements to ensure the dog was looked after during his evening shifts. 

Hillary Griffin, Chairman of the Employment Tribunal, wrote in her conclusion: “Whilst I have no doubt that the Claimant cared deeply for his dog, an employer cannot be expected to accept such absence unquestioningly over a prolonged period.”

The Tribunal subsequently reduced the usual award for unfair dismissal by 30%, as well as awarding £360 for breach of contract as he was not given any notice prior to his employment being terminated.

In total, Mr Blood was awarded £1,683 in compensation.