Mr G Maxwell v HBOS Pic — 2023

The tribunal dealt only with Mr Maxwell’s claim for unfair dismissal. At the outset it clarified that no Equality Act claims or other employment claims were being pursued, despite references in the evidence to possible disability. The respondent said the dismissal was for capability, specifically long-term absence, and the tribunal accepted that this was the genuine reason for dismissal.

Applying the capability authorities, the tribunal found that the respondent had reasonable grounds to believe Mr Maxwell was incapable of performing his job. It relied on the history of prolonged absence, the claimant’s repeated statements that he did not think he could return to work in any capacity, and the occupational health evidence, including the April/May 2022 report which said a return-to-work prognosis remained poor and that there was no foreseeable return date.

The tribunal held that a fair procedure had been followed. It found that the respondent had consulted with Mr Maxwell over an extended period through the wellness plan, obtained occupational health reports, arranged counselling and stress risk assessment, and considered possible adjustments and alternative roles, including return to branch work, other branch roles, fraud and disputes roles, and a phased return. It rejected the claimant’s criticisms about the note-sharing process, the scheduling of meetings, the occupational health referrals, and the handling of the appeal as matters that did not render the dismissal unfair.

The tribunal also considered the claimant’s complaints about the 2018 redeployment, the 2021 grievance process, the absence of redundancy or an exit package, and the discussion of ill-health retirement. It concluded that those matters did not make the dismissal unfair, noting in particular that the claimant’s focus throughout the absence process was to secure an exit package or ill-health retirement, while the respondent’s position of requiring a return to work or moving to dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.