Mr G Williams v British Telecommunications plc — 2020

The Tribunal found that the claimant had a mental impairment of anxiety during the relevant period. It accepted that the effects of addiction were excluded from the statutory definition, but found that the claimant's drug and gambling addiction were a way of coping with anxiety rather than the impairment itself. The Tribunal found that the claimant's anxiety had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities, taking account of social withdrawal, insomnia, medication, absence for stress and anxiety, and the risk of relapse without treatment.

On reasonable adjustments, the Tribunal found that the respondent applied PCPs requiring employees to attend work reliably or be dismissed and requiring employees on sick leave to return to work. It found that these placed the claimant at substantial disadvantage, that the respondent had knowledge of the disability and disadvantage, and that it would have been reasonable to allow him to remain employed and return in line with Occupational Health advice, including a further 4-6 weeks' absence and a phased return. The Tribunal found that the Occupational Health advice was effectively discounted.

On unfair dismissal, the Tribunal found the reason for dismissal was some other substantial reason, namely the claimant's attendance record, rather than capability. It held that the respondent did not act reasonably in dismissing him because the attendance procedure lacked transparency, the managers could not identify clear triggers or justify why the claimant's attendance was unacceptable, and the daily cost calculation relied on by the respondent was not adequately explained. The dismissal was therefore unfair.