Mr M Awan v Mr R Tilling and 1 other — 2026

Mr Awan worked for Royal Mail Group Limited from 10 June 2012 and was dismissed on 29 January 2024 after more than 14 months of sickness absence. The tribunal found that the principal reason was capability: the employer had no clear timetable for his return or information about the capacity in which he might return. It dismissed his unfair dismissal complaint.

The tribunal found that the dismissing and appeal officers genuinely believed Mr Awan lacked capability for his role. That belief rested on his lengthy absence and occupational health advice that he would remain unfit until perceived work-related issues were resolved, which was unlikely to be before the hearing of an earlier tribunal claim in September 2024. The employer had made reasonable inquiries and sufficient attempts to consult him, including offering meetings at neutral work locations and an appeal. The tribunal found no unreasonable failure to consider other roles or changed duties, and held that dismissal was well within the range of reasonable responses.

Royal Mail accepted that Mr Awan was disabled by anxiety, and the tribunal found that it knew of the disability from at least February 2023. For the reasonable adjustments claims, the tribunal accepted that requiring him to attend a work location to discuss his absence was a provision, criterion or practice which placed him at a substantial disadvantage. It found, however, that holding the meetings at his home was not a reasonable adjustment. Personal contact was needed, home visits were outside the employer's practice and were not operationally viable, potential safety concerns arose, neutral work locations had been offered, and the medical evidence did not say that Mr Awan could not attend a meeting at a work location. The claims against Royal Mail and Mr Tilling were dismissed.

For discrimination arising from disability, Royal Mail accepted that dismissal was unfavourable treatment because of sickness absence arising from Mr Awan's disability. The tribunal accepted that ensuring reliable staffing so the business could provide a satisfactory service to customers was a legitimate aim. Dismissal was proportionate because Mr Awan had already been absent for over 14 months, there was no imminent return date, a further absence of at least eight months appeared likely, and keeping the role open caused increased workloads or agency-worker costs. The section 15 complaint was dismissed.

The harassment complaint concerned the decision on 30 March 2023 to stop Mr Awan's pay from 4 April 2023. The tribunal held that the claim, presented on 8 May 2024, was out of time. Even if the period through the repayment of arrears on 18 July 2023 were treated as continuing conduct, the claim was more than six months late. Mr Awan gave no explanation for the delay and had brought an earlier tribunal claim, so the tribunal found that an extension was not just and equitable. It added that the claim would also have failed on its merits because it was not reasonable for the withdrawal of pay, which followed contact problems and was reversed when contact resumed, to have the prohibited effect. All claims failed, and the judgment records no monetary award.