Mr A Ward v Arthur Branwell & Co. Ltd. and 1 other — 2021

Mr Ward was the sole analytical chemist and had long had reduced or flexible hours to care for his wife. After his wife was diagnosed with breast cancer in February 2019, the respondent allowed a temporary work-from-home arrangement at 50% of his usual hours, but the tribunal found that he then did little work and did not attend meetings or the workplace as expected. He was summarily dismissed on 24 September 2019 for alleged gross misconduct concerning attendance, work progress, and missing or out-of-date records.

The tribunal held that the dismissal was not truly a conduct dismissal. It found that the real issue was that Mr Ward could not both care for his wife constantly and carry out his role, and that the respondent should have treated the situation as some other substantial reason rather than gross misconduct. The dismissal was therefore unfair, although the tribunal also found that, had a fair procedure been followed, a fair dismissal at the same time was 100% certain, so there was no basic or compensatory award beyond notice pay and pay before dismissal.

The disability discrimination claim failed because the tribunal held that an employer is not obliged to grant a lengthy or indefinite sabbatical to care for a disabled relative, and that declining to do so was neither direct discrimination nor harassment within the associative discrimination framework. The harassment claim also failed. The tribunal accepted that the letters were unwanted and criticised their tone, but held that they were not related to disability for the purposes of section 26 Equality Act 2010 and did not amount to a hostile or intimidating environment. The total award was £18,577.09, calculated as 17 weeks' gross pay at £1,092.77 per month, with the tribunal noting a net monthly figure of £780.98.