Mr M Blitz, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2022

The tribunal accepted that the claimant was disabled by systemic lupus erythematosus and that the relevant PCP was a requirement to fulfil contractual shift patterns, including night shifts. It found that shift working, particularly night working, adversely affected his health. The respondent relied on legitimate aims of maintaining production and meeting contractual obligations, but the tribunal found there had been no meaningful consideration over a long period of a fixed day shift or bespoke shift arrangement that would have allowed the claimant to remain in his substantive role.

The section 15 dismissal complaint succeeded because dismissal was not a proportionate means of achieving those aims. The tribunal was not satisfied that the respondent had shown a real production risk if the claimant worked regular day shifts. It concluded that a more proportionate response would have been to identify an early, late, or bespoke day shift, with possible cover from volunteers or agency staff, rather than ending employment.

The reasonable-adjustments complaint succeeded insofar as the respondent failed to permit day shifts in the substantive role and failed to short-list the claimant for the Compliance Co-Ordinator, Learning and Development Advisor, and Document Co-Ordinator roles, or offer a trial period in those roles. The tribunal held that short-listing, and in some cases a trial period, would have been reasonable in light of the respondent's redeployment practice and resources. The separate complaint about support, training, and other unspecified adjustments during redeployment did not succeed because it was not shown how those steps would address the disadvantage caused by the shift requirement.

The unfair dismissal claim also succeeded. The tribunal accepted capability or ill-health as the potentially fair reason under section 98(2) ERA 1996, but held the dismissal was unreasonable under section 98(4) because the respondent had not properly explored reasonable adjustments and redeployment alternatives. The separate discrimination complaint about the June 2020 bonus award was dismissed: the tribunal found the £20 e-voucher reflected the claimant working one lane in Q2 2020, not disability-related absence or performance. No remedy was determined in this liability judgment; the case was left for a remedy hearing.