Mr Richard Francis v Nissan Motor Manufacturing (uk) Limited — 2022

Mr Francis was employed as a production line operative from 15 November 2010 until his dismissal on 29 January 2018. He brought complaints of unfair dismissal, unauthorised deduction from wages, and disability discrimination. The wages complaint was withdrawn at the start of the hearing and dismissed upon withdrawal. The respondent accepted that Mr Francis was disabled from 10 August 2017 and knew this from 11 August 2017; Mr Francis said disability and knowledge dated from 7 June 2017.

The tribunal found that the respondent dismissed Mr Francis for capability arising from his lengthy sickness absence and medical incapacity, which Mr Francis accepted was the reason for dismissal. It found that the respondent had obtained appropriate medical information, supported him with physiotherapy and private medical care, held numerous medical counselling meetings, took his views into account, and had waited nine months without a reasonable prospect of return. It concluded the respondent could not reasonably be expected to wait longer and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.

For the Section 15 Equality Act 2010 complaint, the respondent accepted that dismissal was unfavourable treatment because of absence arising in consequence of disability. The tribunal found the aim of having a workforce capable of attending work to perform employed tasks was legitimate and that dismissal was proportionate in the circumstances. The reasonable adjustments complaint concerned the return to office-type duties and the desk and chair used on 22 November 2017; the tribunal found Mr Francis had not shown that the chair or its condition caused his pain, or that a different chair would have made any difference, and dismissed the disability discrimination complaints.

The tribunal dismissed the harassment allegations. It accepted Mr Francis's account that Mr Snaith told him to "Go sit in the fucking rest area", but found that this and the other alleged incidents did not have the purpose or likely effect required by Section 26. The victimisation allegations were also dismissed because Mr Francis had accepted that he was dismissed because of lengthy absence and not because of his grievances, and the tribunal accepted that a job search was not offered because he was unfit for any kind of work.