Mr S Garry-Madden v Network Rail Infrastructure Limited — 2023

The claimant was employed by the respondent and had been absent from work from September 2016 with symptoms later understood as CFS/ME or post-infection syndrome. The respondent conceded disability. The tribunal found that, until a November 2018 occupational health report, the medical evidence available to the respondent consistently indicated that the claimant was not fit to return to work and that there were no adjustments then identified that would enable a return without risk to his health. After that report suggested possible alternative office duties with adjustments, the respondent took steps to consider alternative roles.

The reasonable adjustments claims failed. The tribunal found that alleged PCPs requiring full-time work, return to the previous role, or return within the same division or department were not applied. The PCP of not paying employees once contractual sick pay expired was applied and placed disabled employees at a substantial disadvantage, but returning the claimant to basic pay would not have been a reasonable adjustment because it would have been an open-ended financial commitment where there was no prognosis indicating a likely return to work.

For the section 15 claim, the tribunal accepted that the claimant's absence and inability to return to his previous full duties arose from disability. It found that delays in the grievance process were unfavourable treatment, but were caused by administrative and management failings rather than by the claimant's absence or inability to return to his role. Non-payment after sick pay expired was unfavourable treatment arising from disability-related absence, but was objectively justified as a proportionate means of operating contractual terms and not paying employees beyond contractual sick pay.

The unlawful deduction from wages claim failed because the tribunal found that the claimant's contract did not incorporate the Red Book stood-off arrangements. It further found that, even if those terms had applied, the conditions for stood-off pay were not met. The tribunal also rejected arguments based on waiting time documentation, natural justice, or implied terms as giving rise to a legal entitlement to additional pay.