F McLaughlin & M Walsh-Pammen (Personal representatives of the estate of Mr B Walsh, deceased) v Morrison Data Services Limited — 2022

The Claimant was employed as a meter reader and had periods of ill health connected with depression, anxiety, alcohol-related problems and other health concerns. The tribunal found that between 5 August 2021 and 8 March 2022 he had a mental impairment of depression and anxiety, but had not shown that it had a substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities or that the effects were long-term. The route-related reasonable adjustments complaint therefore failed, and the tribunal also found the Respondent lacked actual or constructive knowledge of disability during that period.

By 19 July 2022 the tribunal found the Claimant was disabled by reason of depression and anxiety. It found the Respondent knew of the disability from receipt of the GP letter dated 7 July 2022. For the capability and welfare meetings PCP, the tribunal found the requirement to attend meetings placed the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage and that the Respondent knew of that disadvantage, but concluded that continuing only welfare meetings or stopping all meetings for at least three months were not reasonable adjustments in the circumstances, given the open-ended medical position and limited prospect of a return to work.

For the section 15 claim, the tribunal found dismissal was unfavourable treatment and that sickness absence had more than a trivial influence on the dismissal. It accepted the Respondent's asserted aims as legitimate and found dismissal was an appropriate and reasonably necessary way of achieving them, balancing the Claimant's position against the Respondent's business and management considerations.

For unfair dismissal, the Claimant accepted capability was the reason for dismissal. The tribunal found there were some procedural issues in the clarity of meeting purposes, but that these did not significantly affect overall fairness. It found the Respondent had consulted, considered potential adjustments, obtained medical evidence, and was not reasonably required to wait longer before dismissing where there was no imminent or likely return to work date.