Mr Mohammed Yusuf Ali v Network Rail — 2022

Mr Mohammed Yusuf Ali was employed by Network Rail Limited as a Senior Technical Officer in a safety critical role. He had Type 1 diabetes, which was known to the Respondent. On 14 February 2018, after working a night shift, he drove a rental van from Southend East toward Barking while experiencing symptoms of low blood sugar and without his blood glucose monitor. The Tribunal accepted that his low blood sugar impaired his concentration and decision-making while driving, and that he was recorded at 62 mph in a 40 mph area. He was later fined £120 and given 3 penalty points.

On unfair dismissal, the Tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was misconduct and that the Respondent had a genuine belief on reasonable grounds after a reasonably sufficient investigation, although the process contained flaws including errors about the road and route familiarity and a failure to obtain GP advice requested by Occupational Health. By a majority, the Tribunal held that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses because the Respondent operated a safety critical business, the Claimant knew he felt unwell and chose to drive, and the incident could have had grave consequences. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed. The Tribunal also found the long delay regrettable but not sufficient to make the dismissal procedurally unfair.

The wrongful dismissal claim succeeded. The Tribunal unanimously held that, given the delay between the 14 February 2018 incident and the 11 July 2019 dismissal, including at least seven months not spent investigating or conducting a disciplinary process, the Respondent had affirmed the contract and was not entitled to dismiss summarily. A majority would also have found that the conduct, while serious, was not sufficiently grave to amount to a repudiatory breach, but that was not necessary to the decision.

The section 15 Equality Act 2010 claim succeeded by a majority. The parties did not dispute that the Claimant was disabled by Type 1 diabetes, that dismissal was unfavourable treatment, that the dismissal was because of the speeding incident, and that the speeding incident was caused by loss of concentration due to fluctuating blood sugar levels and difficulty controlling his diabetic condition. The Tribunal accepted the Respondent’s legitimate aim of protecting the safety of the Claimant, colleagues and the public, but the majority held that dismissal was not proportionate. It found that a final written warning, together with Occupational Health advice on future duties, could have addressed the safety aim, particularly given the Claimant’s remorse and later steps to improve diabetic control.

The reasonable adjustments claim was dismissed. The Tribunal found that the requirement to drive was a PCP imposed until the Claimant was suspended from driving duties in March 2018, but the substantial disadvantage arose only on 14 February 2018. It held that the Respondent did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know before that incident that the PCP placed the Claimant at that disadvantage, and that after the incident he was suspended from driving duties so the PCP no longer applied. No monetary remedy was awarded in this judgment; a separate three-hour remedy hearing was to be listed.