What does 'AWOL' mean?
'AWOL' stands for “Absent Without Official Leave.” Applied to an employment context, it refers to a situation where an employee is absent from work without permission, prior notification, or a valid explanation. Shorter absences are typically treated as unauthorised absence from work and mayamount to misconduct if not addressed or explained. More extended absences can result in frustration of the employment relationship, although the bar for establishing frustration remains high.

How to manage a situation where an employee is absent from work without permission
Employers should adopt a proactive approach to managing all types of absence by ensuring that a clear, written Absence Policy is in place and regularly communicated to staff. This should promote consistency and transparency in the handling of unauthorised absences and assist in bolstering a defence to any potential claim that may arise from an employee disciplined on foot of unauthorised absence.

In practice, where an employee is absent without prior approval, reasonable efforts should be made to establish contact to ascertain the reason for the absence, particularly where there is no prior history of such behaviour, as this may signal an underlying issue such as a disability or illness.

Initial attempts should include contacting the employee via telephone, leaving a voicemail where appropriate and/or sending an email to their personal email address if on file and obtained with consent. Any such attempts should be reasonable in nature and should comply with the employer's GDPR obligations in relation to the use of personal data. If contact cannot be established over a reasonable period, it may be appropriate to reach out to the employee’s emergency contact. A clear
record should be maintained of all attempts to contact the employee, both verbal and written, to support any subsequent disciplinary action.

Consequences of unauthorised absence from work
Unauthorised absence is often addressed as misconduct in an employee handbook or disciplinary policy. Where an employee cannot provide a satisfactory or credible explanation for their absence, employers must carefully consider the appropriate response, having regard to the circumstances and the principles of proportionality and fair procedures.

If the employee confirms the absence is related to an illness and provides the required certification under the Absence Policy (even if that notification is delayed) the employer may not need to take any further action. Where there is a concern that the employee may have been misrepresented the reason for their absence, an employer may be justified in initiating a formal investigation. Depending on the findings, this may give rise to disciplinary action in line with the organisation’s procedures, up to and including dismissal in serious cases.

Where the absence simply persists without explanation or contact being made by the employee, employers may have no option but to proceed down the disciplinary route for breaches of the Absence Policy. If the employee fails to engage the employer and the disciplinary process the employer may have to apply sanctions without the benefit of the employees input. Before taking such action, an employer should exhaust all other possible avenues to facilitate engagement by the employee, to include re-scheduling the disciplinary hearing. Given the high bar for gross misconduct dismissals, when applying a sanction the employer should consider whether it is appropriate to effect a dismissal in the first instance or whether it might be more appropriate to apply a final written warning, with further disciplinary action being taken for any further absence.

Recent Cases
Brian Meagher v Irish Prison Service Ips - ADJ-00049744/2025
This case concerned the dismissal of a prison officer who was deemed to have been absent without official leave (AWOL) after leaving Ireland to travel to Ukraine in June 2022 without notifying his employer or obtaining approval. The employer treated the prolonged and unexplained absence as a  fundamental breach of trust, particularly given the operational pressures within the prison service. Ultimately the employer dismissed the employee for being in breach of his terms and conditions of employment resulting in the breakdown of trust and confidence in the relationship.

In this case the officer had failed to attend work, had not communicated with his employer for a significant period, and had taken up external engagement abroad. The IPS maintained that such conduct undermined the core requirement of reliability in a critical public service role and justified dismissal. From the employer’s perspective, the absence, coupled with the lack of engagement, meant the employee was no longer capable of fulfilling his contractual obligations.

The Adjudication Officer accepted that, while the unauthorised absence clearly warranted disciplinary action and represented serious misconduct, it did not automatically justify dismissal. A key factor influencing the outcome was the employee’s explanation that he had attempted to arrange informal cover for his shifts. Significant mitigating circumstances arose, including the employee’s personal connection to Ukraine, his intention for a short absence, and, crucially, the life-threatening injuries he sustained, which impacted his ability to communicate and engage with his employer.

The central issue was whether the employer had properly considered all of the surrounding circumstances and afforded fair procedures before dismissing. The Adjudication Officer concluded that the dismissal was procedurally unfair. This was based on the fact that the employer failed to conduct a balanced and thorough assessment of the circumstances or provide the employee with a fair opportunity to be heard. In this case the employer had relied almost exclusively on written
correspondence and did not adequately engage with the employee’s explanations or mitigating factors.

Notably, the remedy of re-engagement was awarded, reflecting the view that, despite the seriousness of the AWOL conduct, the dismissal itself was disproportionate in light of the flawed process and the unique factual context.

Kenneth McMorrow v Clare Distribution Services ADJ-00055274/2026
In this case, the Complainant, a delivery driver, was dismissed on grounds of gross misconduct arising from a failure to disclose historic criminal convictions and a period of alleged unauthorised absence in July 2023, which coincided with new criminal charges. The employer argued that the unexplained absence, coupled with the surrounding circumstances reported in the media, contributed to a loss of trust and confidence and posed reputational risks.

While the Adjudication Officer accepted that the employee’s absence without adequate explanation was a relevant and legitimate factor in the employer’s decision-making, particularly given its overlap with serious allegations, it was not determinative. Importantly, there was some inconsistency in the employer’s evidence regarding the precise dates of absence, and records suggested that the employer may have had prior awareness of part of the absence (including bereavement leave). This weakened the employer’s reliance on AWOL as a standalone justification for dismissal.

Critically, although the Adjudication Officer found that there were substantial grounds which could justify dismissal (including the AWOL concerns as part of a broader context). However, the dismissal was held to be procedurally unfair. The employer’s defence failed due to clear defects in the disciplinary process, most notably pre-judgment. Evidence was given that the Complainant was encouraged to resign both before and during the disciplinary process which undermined the
requirement for an impartial and fair hearing.

In effect, while the employee’s unauthorised absence contributed significantly to the breakdown in
trust and formed part of the rationale for dismissal, the employer’s failure to adhere strictly to fair
procedures proved fatal to its defence. The dismissal was deemed unfair.

Takeaways
Employers should take the following steps to ensure they can take the required steps in an AWOL
scenario:

• Unauthorised absence should be clearly addressed in the Absence Policy and notified to employees.
• Employers should make all reasonable efforts to contact the employee to ascertain the reason for their absence.
• Only after allowing a reasonable period for engagement should an employer consider triggering the disciplinary process.
• Employers should also remain mindful of any mitigating factors that may explain the absence,such as bereavement, adverse weather events, or information available in the public domain (for example, on social media).
• All correspondence with the employee should be clearly documented by reference to the Absence Policy, clearly setting out the possible sanctions if the employee fails to comply with that policy.
• A failure to properly consider mitigating factors could result in a successful outcome for the employee.

Employers should be aware of the challenges in successfully defending a gross misconduct dismissal and consider whether the sanction of final written warning as a first step might be more defensible, particularly if the employee refuses to engage with the process leaving the employer unable to address any mitigation issues.