Ms K Annand (Counsel) For the v Respondent — 2019

The claimant had been employed by the respondent since 2005 and worked as an ambulance technician from 2006. By 2016 he had osteoarthritis in his left knee and reduced flexion in his left hand. Occupational health reports in June and July 2016 recorded that working on SRV duties did not aggravate his symptoms and suggested SRV-only work, with a practical assessment of capability if management remained in doubt.

At the welfare meeting on 26 July 2016 the respondent removed him from his substantive front-line duties and placed him on temporary vehicle preparation duties while redeployment was pursued. The tribunal accepted that the PCP requiring ambulance technicians to work on DCAs placed him at a substantial disadvantage, but found the respondent had shown that SRV-only rostering was not a reasonable adjustment on the operational facts it found. It also accepted that a practical assessment of capability might have been useful, but did not treat that as a stand-alone adjustment in the absence of SRV-only rostering.

The tribunal held that the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments in relation to redeployment. It found that the claimant should have been given non-competitive interview or prioritised consideration, with training or a trial period if necessary, for the Safeguarding Co-ordinator and Simulation Technician vacancies. In those roles the claimant met the minimum and essential criteria, was not required to be the best candidate, and could have been accommodated by the respondent's recruitment policy. The tribunal did not make the same finding for the Communications Officer or Events Co-ordinator vacancies.

On discrimination arising from disability, the tribunal held that removing the claimant from substantive duties on 26 July 2016 and dismissing him with effect from 31 May 2017 were unfavourable treatment arising from his inability to grip, lift, and get in and out of vehicles. It did not find that the redeployment process itself was unfavourable treatment because of disability. The removal from front-line duties was found to be a proportionate means of achieving the respondent's legitimate aim, but the dismissal was not, because the claimant could have been redeployed if the reasonable adjustments found by the tribunal had been made. For that reason the tribunal also upheld unfair dismissal under section 98(4) ERA 1996 as the decision to dismiss fell outside the band of reasonable responses.

The victimisation complaint had been withdrawn by correspondence on 31 October 2019 and was dismissed following that withdrawal. The tribunal also treated the discrimination complaints as in time either as conduct extending over the redeployment and appeal period or, alternatively, as suitable for a just and equitable extension. Remedy was not determined in this judgment and was left for later case management and remedy hearing directions.