Ms Angela Goodwin v Elim Foursquare Gospel Alliance- a registered charity — 2021

Ms Angela Goodwin was employed as a cook and had been absent from work continuously from 29 October 2018 because of a foot operation and related complications. The Tribunal preferred the Respondent's evidence and the contemporaneous documents, and did not accept the Claimant's evidence where it conflicted with those records. It found that by July 2020 she had been absent for about 20 months, had not given a return-to-work date, and had told the Respondent that she remained unfit for her duties and might only be able to manage a very limited phased return at some unspecified future point.

Applying s.98(1) and s.98(4) ERA 1996, and the guidance in DB Schenker Rail (UK) Limited v Doolan, the Tribunal found that the genuine reason for dismissal was capability. It held that the Respondent had a reasonable belief, based on reasonable investigation, that the Claimant could not perform her role and that it was reasonable to proceed without first obtaining a medical report, because the Claimant's own evidence at the capability meeting and appeal already indicated that she could not return in the foreseeable future. The Tribunal also accepted that a one-hour-per-day return was not a practicable alternative for the nursery.

The Tribunal further found that the Respondent had acted reasonably in the circumstances, including by inviting the Claimant to a capability meeting, warning her that dismissal was being considered, and offering an appeal. It found the long-term absence had continued well beyond 20 months, that the Respondent was a small employer with limited resources, and that it was not unreasonable for the Respondent to conclude it could not wait any longer for a return to work. The Tribunal noted that if it had found the dismissal unfair, it would have considered that a medical report would have made no difference and that the Claimant would have been dismissed in any event; it also said her post would have been redundant as of about 26 June 2020 following a restructure.

The separate notice pay claim was dismissed. The Tribunal found that the Claimant had received four weeks' notice of dismissal, from 14 July 2020 to 14 August 2020, and that because she was not receiving statutory sick pay or contractual sick pay, the Respondent was not obliged to pay her for that notice period. It also found that the notice given exceeded the statutory minimum notice to which she was entitled.