Mr. J. Bagley v Northumberland County Council — 2025

The respondent conceded that the claimant had disabilities including ankylosing spondylitis and anxiety and depression, and that it knew or ought to have known of those conditions at the relevant time. The tribunal found that the attendance triggers in the respondent's health and well-being policy were a PCP, but that the adjustments sought, including loosening triggers or rolling back the review process, were not reasonable and would not have had a realistic chance of removing the disadvantage because the claimant remained absent.

For the section 15 claim, the tribunal accepted that dismissal was unfavourable treatment, that it was because of sickness absence, and that the sickness absence arose in consequence of the claimant's accepted disabilities. It nevertheless found that dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims of ensuring regular attendance, providing an efficient and cost-effective service, and maintaining attendance standards.

For unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was capability due to ill health. Although it found a breach of the respondent's policy because the claimant was not warned at review 2 and review 3 that continued poor attendance could ultimately lead to dismissal, it concluded that the process as a whole was fair, that the respondent had consulted and investigated adequately, that it could not reasonably have been expected to wait longer, and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.