A tribunal ruling at Aberdeen Airport has put a price on getting dismissal decisions wrong: £40,000
That is the headline number after a security supervisor at the airport was awarded compensation following a dispute over sickness absence. For workers, especially those in shift-based airport jobs where attendance rules can be unforgiving, the case is a reminder that policy is not supposed to be a blunt instrument. For everyone else passing through Aberdeen Airport, it is also a glimpse into the less glamorous machinery that keeps terminals running.
Susan Caroline, who worked for contractor ICTS, said she was unfairly dismissed after an absence record that included 55 days off sick between February 2023 and November 2024. The tribunal agreed with her that the absences were genuine.
Judge Smith said the sickness absences included 34 days after a rotator cuff operation and time off connected to Covid-19. In other words, this was not the sort of absenteeism that usually sends managers into a tailspin over made-up long weekends and suspiciously convenient Mondays.
What the tribunal found
According to the ruling, Ms Caroline had attended absence meetings before being told by email on December 3, 2024 that she had been dismissed. She had started work at Aberdeen Airport in 2017 and had been working as a security supervisor.
The tribunal also heard that, during a contractual review meeting on November 25, she told manager Dumitru Chelaru that she was dealing with anxiety, mental health issues and counselling. At that same meeting, he said he had discounted the absences linked to her operation from the record.
When asked at the tribunal why he decided to dismiss her, Mr Chelaru said he had discounted anxiety and mental health as a factor behind the absences and that the decision was made in line with policy.
Judge Smith took a different view. He said the real reason for the dismissal was Ms Caroline’s absences and that the manager believed policy left no alternative. The judge described it as a case of a dismissing manager adopting “tunnel vision”.
Why this matters for airport workers
This is not a travel story in the usual sense, but airport jobs are part of the travel ecosystem. Security staff are among the people who keep queues moving and departures on time, even if the passengers never learn their names. When disputes like this end up in tribunal, they shine a light on how tightly workplace policies can shape conditions in a sector that depends on reliability.
For workers in airports, airlines, baggage handling, and cleaning teams, the case underlines a familiar problem: attendance policies can collide with real health issues. If a manager treats the rulebook as more important than the context, that can quickly turn into an expensive mistake.
For employers, the message is less charming and much more costly. A dismissal decision based too rigidly on absence records can trigger compensation, appeals, and reputational damage. That is not exactly the sort of “terminal delay” anyone wants on the balance sheet.
The money side of the ruling
Following hearings in Aberdeen on March 4 and 5, Ms Caroline was awarded damages totalling £37,779.21. She was also awarded £7,350, described in the ruling as 10.5 times a weekly wage of £700.
That adds up to just over £40,000 overall, a substantial sum in a case that turned on whether the dismissals process properly accounted for genuine illness.
| Key detail | Information |
|---|---|
| Employer | ICTS |
| Workplace | Aberdeen Airport |
| Role | Security supervisor |
| Absence period | February 2023 to November 2024 |
| Days off sick | 55 |
| Compensation awarded | £37,779.21 plus £7,350 |
| Total award | More than £40,000 |
What budget travellers should take from this
Most visitors will never see the inside of an employment tribunal, and that is probably for the best. But airport staffing decisions do affect the travel experience, particularly at smaller or mid-sized airports where a lean workforce has to cover security, check-in flow, and operational pressure without much slack.
If you are flying through Aberdeen on a tight budget, the practical lesson is indirect but real. Airport operations are only as smooth as the people working behind them. When staffing is strained, the knock-on effect can show up in longer queues, slower processing, and the kind of admin chaos that travel budgets hate.
For backpackers and budget flyers, the broader takeaway is simple:
- Keep extra time for airport security, especially if you are flying at peak hours.
- Do not assume a small airport means a relaxed airport. Sometimes it just means fewer people doing more work.
- If you are employed in the travel sector, know how absence policy is handled and keep clear records of medical issues and meetings.
About ICTS and Aberdeen Airport
ICTS provides security services at a range of UK airports and has a workforce of around 4,000 employees, according to the information heard in the case. Aberdeen Airport is one of the locations where it operates.
The company has been contacted for comment. No further response was included in the material available.
A small case with a larger airport lesson
For most travellers, this will never change the price of a flight or the length of a packing list. But it does show how airport operations depend on people making sensible decisions, not just box-ticking their way through policy. And in the travel world, box-ticking is already reserved for hand luggage measurements and liquid limits.
For workers, the ruling reinforces that genuine illness and medical treatment cannot be treated as if they are just another inconvenience to be filed away. For employers, it is a reminder that rigid policy can be a very expensive shortcut.
For passengers, it is another reason to remember that the invisible side of travel is doing more work than most of us ever see.
