Mr S Hoare v Jaguar Landrover Limited — 2022

The claimant, Mr S Hoare, worked in the Trim and Final area at Jaguar Land Rover’s Halewood site and relied on ulnar neuritis and asthma. The tribunal accepted that he was disabled by both ulnar neuritis and asthma during the relevant period, but found that the respondent only had knowledge of asthma from about 29 May 2020 and that the managers dealing with the Restricted Worker Process did not have the same knowledge.

On the reasonable adjustments claim, the tribunal found that the respondent operated a Restricted Worker Process, gave the claimant temporary ad hoc duties after he returned from furlough on 8 September 2020, involved occupational health, union representatives and managers, and repeatedly explored alternative roles. It accepted that the production line work was physically strenuous and that, given the claimant’s cumulative restrictions, no suitable alternative role within the business was identified. The claimant’s suggested adjustments, including using a left hand on some tasks or working from a platform/box, were rejected as not reasonable and, in the tribunal’s view, unsafe or incompatible with the production line process.

The separate discrimination complaints said to arise between 19 September 2019 and 23 March 2020 were held to be out of time. The tribunal found the last possible date for a continuing failure to make reasonable adjustments was 23 March 2020, that the primary limitation period expired on 18 June 2020, and that it was not just and equitable to extend time because the delay was long, there was no good reason for it, and the respondent was prejudiced by the passage of time.

The unfair dismissal claim also failed. The tribunal accepted that the reason for dismissal was capability and that this was potentially fair under section 98(2) ERA 1996. It found that Jason Wilding and the managers involved genuinely and honestly believed dismissal was justified after a lengthy consultation process, repeated occupational health input, union involvement, and multiple attempts to identify or trial alternative roles. The tribunal concluded that dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses and that the claimant could not safely continue in his contractual role or be placed in a non-existent alternative post.