Mr P Marley v SD Taylor Limited — 2020

Mr P Marley brought claims against SD Taylor Limited trading as Loans at Home for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. He had been employed since 2014, had been promoted to regional manager, and after restructuring was moved to an area manager role on lower pay. After difficulties with his new line managers, he raised a grievance, appealed the grievance outcome, and was later dismissed on 19 August 2019 following a concerns meeting held in his absence while he was off sick.

The tribunal held that the respondent had not shown that the principal reason for dismissal was some other substantial reason. It found that the real reason was the claimant's conduct, including his attitude towards managers, his forthright comments, and his continuing pursuit of his grievance and appeal. Applying section 98(1) and section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and the balance of reasonable responses test, the tribunal found the dismissal substantively unfair.

The tribunal also found the procedure unfair. It said the respondent moved too quickly to a dismissal hearing after the grievance appeal outcome, failed to set out the charges to be answered, proceeded in the claimant's absence despite his sick note and statement that he would not attend, failed to seek further medical evidence or postpone the meeting, and did not adequately consider alternatives such as a move, change of line manager, or mediation. It found no contributory fault by the claimant, but said the respondent had fallen foul of ACAS guidelines so there would be a 25% uplift, while the claimant's failure to appeal would justify a 25% reduction.

On disability, the tribunal found that Mr Marley was not disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010 at the material time. It accepted that he appeared to have some mental impairment when he began medication, but found no evidence that it was long-term or likely to be long-term, and it was not satisfied that the respondent knew or could reasonably have been expected to know of a disability. The disability discrimination claims were therefore dismissed. The judgment recorded that a remedies hearing would take place later, so no final award was determined in this decision.