In person For the v Respondent — 2024

The claimant, a disabled employee with ankylosing spondylitis, had been absent from work from 30 March 2020 until his dismissal for capability on 2 June 2023. The tribunal accepted that the respondent treated him as disabled throughout the material period and reviewed a series of occupational health reports, including reports in March 2021, January 2022, May 2022 and October 2023, together with two rounds of scoping for alternative work.

On the discrimination claims, the tribunal held that the dismissal was because the claimant could not perform his substantive duties, not because of disability. For the reasonable adjustments claim, it found that the duty had arisen because the claimant was placed at a substantial disadvantage by the OPG role requirement, but the respondent had investigated alternative work and offered options including sedentary and part-time roles, which the claimant declined. The tribunal found no further reasonable adjustment that was shown to be available and not made.

The victimisation claim failed because the tribunal found that the alleged detriments were either factually incorrect, genuine administrative errors that were corrected, or matters the respondent was entitled not to reopen because they had already been determined in earlier proceedings. It also found that the respondent did investigate new complaints raised from January 2022 onwards. The unfair dismissal claim failed under s.98(4) ERA 1996: the tribunal held that the respondent had consulted the claimant, obtained medical evidence, considered alternatives to dismissal, and acted within the band of reasonable responses.

The only claim upheld was the unlawful deduction from wages claim for accrued but unpaid holiday pay. The parties agreed that the claimant was due £1,301.53 gross, and that sum was ordered by consent. No separate award was made for the dismissed claims.