Member A Grant Tribunal Member R Dearle Mr Martin Campbell v Instructed by Messrs Unionline Securitas Security Services (UK) Limited and 1 other — 2021

The claimant worked for the respondent as a relief security officer on a 42-hour contract from 25 May 2018. The tribunal found that his line manager, Mr Maini, tried to provide a more structured pattern by placing him temporarily on core cover when other officers were absent, but that this was always temporary and not a promise of a permanent core role. The claimant later went off work on 29 April 2019 with stress, and the tribunal found that throughout the period he consistently described the difficulty as the unpredictability of the relief role rather than fibromyalgia.

The tribunal held that the reason for dismissal on 28 May 2020 was capability on health grounds. It found that the respondent obtained up-to-date occupational health evidence, consulted the claimant on 15 May and 20 May 2020, considered alternative roles and a casual contract, and reasonably concluded that there were no core roles available and no realistic prospect of the claimant returning to relief work unless a core role was offered. The tribunal rejected the argument that the dismissal was unfair because of the timing of the occupational health report, the offer of a casual contract, or any suggestion that the decision was improperly driven by HR rather than Mr McLaren.

On the disability discrimination claim under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010, the tribunal accepted that the claimant was disabled by fibromyalgia from 15 April 2020 and that the respondent had actual knowledge by 15 May 2020. However, it found that the claimant's absence was caused by stress arising from the relief role, not by something arising in consequence of his disability. The tribunal considered the occupational health report unclear on causation, but concluded on the evidence that the disability had no more than a minor or trivial influence on the absence and therefore the dismissal was not unfavourable treatment because of something arising from disability.

On the reasonable adjustments claim, the tribunal found that the pleaded PCPs were not established as policies or practices applied by the respondent, including any policy of dismissing because of long-term absence, moving to dismissal without exercising discretion, or requiring acceptance of a zero-hours contract. It also found that, even if a PCP had been made out, the claimant had not shown a substantial disadvantage connected to his disability, and the proposed adjustments were not reasonable on the facts because there was no core role to offer, no basis to keep the claimant employed indefinitely, and no evidence that extending employment or leave would have changed the position. All claims were dismissed and no remedy was awarded.