Mr P McCool v Unilever UK Limited — 2021

The tribunal found that the claimant was a disabled person by reason of depression and anxiety, and that the respondent ought reasonably to have known this well before the dismissal. Although the respondent focused on the claimant's hearing loss and tinnitus, the medical evidence, fit notes, occupational health reports, prescription of anti-depressants, and the claimant's presentation at meetings all pointed to a mental health disability which HR failed properly to recognise or investigate.

On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal found that the respondent applied three relevant PCPs: requiring the claimant to take the FLT tests on the first day of his return, requiring him to return to a full shift pattern within a set four-week period, and requiring him to resume full duties within that limited phased return. Those PCPs placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage because they increased his anxiety, led to his inability to complete the FLT test and the phased return, and contributed to a further absence from 3 April 2019. The tribunal held that reasonable adjustments should have included delaying the FLT tests, providing support and work shadowing, allowing a longer phased return, acknowledging the claimant's mental health condition, identifying a named support contact, reducing duties, and giving proper consideration to alternative roles with training and support.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal accepted capability as the reason for dismissal but held that the dismissal was unfair. It found that the respondent did not review or learn from the failed return to work, gave contradictory and limited consideration to redeployment, and did not properly consider ill-health retirement before dismissal. The tribunal concluded that the respondent's failure to make reasonable adjustments and its handling of the claimant's ill-health meant dismissal did not fall within the range of reasonable responses.