Mr J Beeley v Outokumpu Stainless Ltd Heard by Hybrid hearing (Sheffield) — 2021

The claimant, Mr J Beeley, had long service with the respondent and was moved from his role as general manager of SMACC into a new role as general manager, health and safety, Long Products. The tribunal accepted that he was a disabled person for Equality Act purposes because of anxiety and depression, and that there was a deterioration in performance and behaviour from 2017 onwards alongside sickness absence. It found that the respondent’s Organisational Blueprint Project led to a genuine reorganisation of the EHS function and that the claimant’s dedicated Long Products role was no longer required.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that redundancy was the reason for dismissal within section 139(1) ERA 1996 and applied the Burrell and Murray authorities. It found that the respondent had a diminution in the need for employees to carry out the claimant’s particular work and that the dismissal was attributable to that redundancy situation. Applying section 98(4) ERA 1996, Iceland Frozen Foods, Williams/Compair Maxam, Morgan and Samsung Electronics, the tribunal concluded that the consultation, scoring and appeal process fell within the range of reasonable responses. It accepted that the claimant was informed of the reorganisation, was told the available roles, had an opportunity to comment, and was given an appeal heard by Mr Rodrigo. The unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed.

On the section 15 disability discrimination claim, the tribunal found that the claimant’s adverse performance and his sickness absences arose in consequence of disability. It also found that Mr McCubbin’s scoring exercise in August 2019 treated the claimant unfavourably because it did not properly take account of the effect of his disability on his performance, and that the redundancy decision and dismissal were unfavourable treatment. However, it concluded that Mr Rodrigo’s later approach included some adjustment for the claimant’s earlier performance and that, in any event, the respondent had shown that the overall treatment was a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims connected with reorganisation, efficiency, cost savings and selecting the most suitable person for the available roles.

On the reasonable adjustments complaint under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010, the tribunal accepted that the scoring exercise and consultation process were PCPs and that the claimant was at a substantial disadvantage because of his disability. It found that the respondent knew of the disadvantage. Even so, it held that the adjustments actually made by Mr Rodrigo to the process were reasonable, that the specific complaint about the 25 November 2019 meeting failed on the facts because breaks were offered and no objection had been raised beforehand, and that it was not reasonable to require Mr McCubbin to adjust the scores so as to appoint the claimant to a role for which he was assessed as not meeting the essential criteria. No remedy was awarded because all claims were dismissed.