Mr J Muir v Astra Zeneca UK Limited — 2024

Astra Zeneca UK Limited summarily dismissed Mr J Muir on 11 December 2020 following a disciplinary process about his conduct toward colleagues on the Capi project in June and July 2020. The tribunal found that Mr Muir had anxiety and depression within section 6 Equality Act 2010, and that management knew or should have known of that disability from no later than January 2019. It accepted evidence that managers had been discussing his mental health during 2020, but no effective support or occupational health referral was put in place before the disciplinary process escalated.

On the section 15 Equality Act claim, the tribunal identified the relevant 'something' as Mr Muir's dealings with colleagues. It accepted that his anxiety and depression, together with his vulnerability to stress and coping style under pressure, materially affected how he interacted with colleagues during the relevant meetings. The tribunal held that the dismissal was unfavourable treatment because of that something, and although Astra Zeneca relied on legitimate aims of maintaining a safe workplace and upholding standards of conduct, dismissal was not a proportionate means of achieving those aims because lesser intervention and support were available and were not used.

The unfair dismissal claim also succeeded under section 98 ERA 1996. The tribunal accepted that conduct was the potentially fair reason, and that the employer carried out a detailed investigation and appeal, but held that the dismissal was outside the band of reasonable responses because the investigators and decision-makers failed to make proper enquiries into the claimant's mental health and did not take adequate account of its effect on his behaviour. The wrongful dismissal/notice pay complaint also succeeded because the tribunal found the conduct did not amount to gross misconduct or a repudiatory breach justifying summary dismissal.

The tribunal rejected contributory fault. It also found that the appeal process was procedurally flawed because the appeal officer had two pre-meetings with the dismissing officer without telling Mr Muir or his representative, and it considered that an uplift of 10% to the compensatory award would be appropriate for the ACAS Code breach. Liability was determined only; the case was listed to proceed to a separate remedy hearing, so no monetary award was quantified in this judgment.