Mr P Smith v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2017

The claimant was dismissed on notice after the respondent's attendance procedure reached the stage of considering dismissal. The tribunal found the reason for dismissal was some other substantial reason arising from implementation of that attendance procedure. It found the trigger points had been correctly applied, the claimant had been notified of the stages, had trade union representation, and was able to put forward arguments against dismissal.

The tribunal accepted that the respondent operated a strict attendance policy because of service obligations. It found the respondent reasonably concluded that the final heatstroke absence should not be discounted as a work-related absence, including because the claimant had not worn a hat and because contemporaneous records indicated he had spent time in the garden after work. The tribunal held that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.

For the s15 disability discrimination claim, the tribunal found the respondent as an organisation knew of the claimant's brain tumour diagnosis, although the dismissing and appeal managers did not have actual knowledge. It treated the relevant unfavourable treatment as implementation of the absence procedure leading to dismissal. The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed because of his attendance record and repeated triggering of the procedure, that sitting in the garden was not something arising from disability, and that the respondent's aim of having a reliable workforce to meet service standards justified the treatment. The disability discrimination claim was dismissed.