represented himself Punjabi interpreter: Mrs H K Lamba for the v Mr R Chaudhry (solicitor) (1-10 July 2024) Ms K Hall (legal director) (15 July 2024) — 2024

The claimant worked for Royal Mail in an Operational Postal Grade role from July 2012 and was dismissed on 16 March 2021 under the respondent's ill-health policy. The hearing was listed and conducted on liability only, so no remedy hearing was held. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had chronic pain amounting to a disability from July 2018 and that the respondent could reasonably have been expected to know of that disability by 14 July 2019, after the claimant's May and June 2019 difficulties, but not before then.

The tribunal rejected the direct disability discrimination and section 15 complaints. It found that the alleged refusal of extra breaks was dealt with by an agreement for split breaks reached on 24 May 2019, that the alleged counting and micro-monitoring of work did not happen, that there was no vacancy in resources for the claimant in November 2018, and that the coaching roles later relied on were not sitting roles and were not suitable for him. For the section 15 claim, the tribunal held that the claimed consequences of disability were the need for additional breaks, seated work and sick leave, but the factual allegations at issues 21.1 to 21.6 either failed on the facts or occurred before the date when the respondent could reasonably have been expected to know of the disability.

On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal accepted that the manual-handling requirements of the OPG role and the daily 8-hour shift pattern with a 40-minute break were PCPs and that they placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage. It nevertheless found no failure to make reasonable adjustments because no duty arose before July 2019, the claimant was off sick from 9 July 2019 and his medical advice did not identify effective further steps for some time, and from June 2020 the respondent did explore seated and desk-based roles before providing an e-prime sitting role and phased return from October 2020. The harassment complaint also failed: many allegations were not proved, and where conduct occurred, such as stopping sick pay, holding a sickness meeting in the canteen, delaying the grievance outcome, or not appointing a single point of contact, the tribunal found it was not disability-related. The unfair dismissal complaint failed because the tribunal found the respondent genuinely believed the claimant was no longer capable of doing his duties, consulted him and his union, obtained up-to-date medical evidence, searched for alternative roles, and acted within the range of reasonable responses in dismissing him for capability/ill health.