Case 3203160/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Hussain v London General Transport Services Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 3203160/2019
- Decision date
- 11 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reid Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Ms Houzer, Mr Bowman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Hussain
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as a driver and was dismissed after a period of sickness absence. The tribunal found that the respondent dismissed him for capability, namely long-term sickness absence with no expected return date and repeated failure to attend review meetings under its Long-term Sickness Absence Procedure. It found the dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses and that the respondent could not reasonably be expected to wait longer without information about a return date.
The tribunal found that the claimant had reported problems with a bus driver's seat, and that some reports conveyed information about pain or sitting position. However, it found he did not hold a belief at the time that the disclosures were made in the public interest, so they were not protected disclosures. It also found that the decision-makers were not aware of the seat reports and that those complaints were not the reason for dismissal.
For the disability discrimination claims, the tribunal found that the claimant had not shown that his back condition had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities at the relevant time. The seat-related reasonable adjustment claim was also found to be out of time. The sick pay issue was resolved by consent for £785.60 gross, the travel pass deduction claim was dismissed because it had been repaid, and the unexplained holiday pay claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal under s94 Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed; the tribunal found dismissal for capability due to long-term sickness absence was overall fair. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal under s103A Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed; the tribunal found the claimant had not made a protected disclosure and in any event the seat complaints were not the reason for dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The s15 Equality Act 2010 claim concerning dismissal was dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not a disabled person under s6 Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The s20 Equality Act 2010 reasonable adjustment claims were dismissed. The seat adjustment claim was out of time, and the phased return claim failed because the claimant was not found to be disabled at the relevant time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | By consent, the respondent was to pay £785.60 gross outstanding sick pay within seven days of the judgment being sent. | Settled |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £786
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
13 references- s123 Equality Act 2010
- s6 Equality Act 2010
- Equality Act 2010 Sch 1 Part 1
- Guidance on matters to be taken into account in determining questions relating to the definition of disability 2011
- s43B(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth
- Millbank Financial Services Ltd v Crawford
- s103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- s98(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s98(2)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Spencer v Paragon Wallpapers Ltd
- S v Dundee City Council
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.