Mr M Redmond v Thames Water Utilities Limited — 2022

The tribunal first determined, as a preliminary issue, that the claimant was not a disabled person for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. The condition relied on was back pain. The tribunal found the evidence did not show a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities at the relevant time, noting in particular the claimant’s sustained return to work after his earlier injury, his statements that he was fully fit, and the limited evidence about any day-to-day restriction.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found the reason for dismissal was capability. After a further back injury in November 2018, Occupational Health concluded the claimant was not fit for his substantive FLIP team role and recommended redeployment. The tribunal accepted the respondent’s rationale for not returning him to that role and found it reasonable for the respondent to run a medical capability process aimed at securing alternative employment.

The tribunal found the process and outcome fell within the range of reasonable responses. The claimant was given repeated extensions, support with applications, representation at the meetings, and an appeal, but did not secure another role. The breach of contract claim, concerning the corrected job title and alleged pay consequences, was rejected because the tribunal found the claimant was in fact single-skilled and the title correction was administrative, with no contractual breach proved.