Mr S Dymek v Woodhead Brothers Neerock Limited — 2026

Mr Dymek was employed as a butcher at the respondent’s abattoir from 2 December 2010 until his dismissal with payment in lieu of notice on 28 March 2024. At dismissal he was disabled by the combined impairments of neck and back pain, numb and trembling hands, depression and memory loss. The tribunal determined complaints of unfair dismissal and discrimination arising from disability under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010.

The tribunal found that the principal reason for dismissal was some other substantial reason under section 98(1)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996: repeated sickness absences that triggered the respondent’s attendance management policy. The policy had been properly and fairly applied, the claimant had received warnings and opportunities to appeal, and the respondent had previously restarted the process after his four-month accident-related absence rather than progressing directly to dismissal. When dismissed, his absence rate was 11.54%, compared with the policy target of 3%, and the tribunal found that dismissal after further absences during a final warning was within the band of reasonable responses. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore dismissed.

The dismissal was unfavourable treatment for the purposes of section 15, and it occurred because of the sickness absences that had led to warnings and dismissal. However, those absences resulted from flu or Covid-19, ear and eye infections, chest and stomach pains, and deep vein thrombosis. The claimant accepted that those conditions were unconnected to his pleaded impairments, and there was no medical evidence supporting his proposed link between the impairments and increased vulnerability to those conditions. Of 55 working days of sickness absence in the two years before dismissal, 11 days, or 20%, mentioned back pain; the tribunal rejected the contention that 80% arose from disability. It therefore found that the dismissal was not because of something arising in consequence of disability and dismissed the section 15 complaint.

For completeness, the tribunal found that the respondent had no actual knowledge of the disabilities at dismissal. It could reasonably have been expected to know from 13 October 2022 that the claimant was disabled by the physical impairments of neck and back pain and numb and trembling hands, but it neither knew nor could reasonably have been expected to know of disability arising from depression or memory loss.

The tribunal also found, in the alternative, that dismissal would have been a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of maintaining acceptable attendance levels. It concluded that the respondent had fairly progressed through its attendance procedure, the relevant absence rates remained above target even after disability-related absences were excluded, and a further final warning would not have achieved the same aim. Both complaints were dismissed and no monetary award was made.