Bus Driver Sacked Whilst on Sick Leave Succeeds in Unfair Dismissal Claim

Dismissing a sick employee on medical grounds may be lawful and justified, but it is always something that is likely to attract close scrutiny by an Employment Tribunal (ET). In a case on point, a bus driver who was sacked whilst on sick leave, having suffered a stroke, succeeded in an unfair…

Apr 05, 2022

The driver was hospitalised for 13 days following his stroke and was on sick leave for over six months prior to his dismissal. The DVLA had revoked his Passenger Carrying Vehicle (PCV) licence and he had been told that he could not apply for a new one until 12 months after the date of his stroke. His dismissal letter stated that his employment was being terminated on medical grounds.

In upholding his complaint, an ET noted that, prior to his dismissal, he was making a good recovery. He was having no neurosensory difficulties and his sole remaining symptom was fatigue. Although his doctor had signed him off sick, a more recent occupational health report had stated that he was fit to return to work, albeit with some adjustments.

No account had been taken of the possibility of further significant improvement in his condition. The occupational health report indicated that his day-to-day activities were unrestricted and there was no evidence that it was impracticable to make any adjustments necessary to cater for his fatigue. Overall, the ET concluded that a reasonable employer would not have dismissed him on medical grounds and that the decision to do so fell outside the range of reasonable responses.

The ruling entitled him to a basic award reflecting his four years’ service. The ET concluded, however, that his compensatory award should be reduced by 70 per cent on the basis that the revocation of his PCV licence would have provided a potentially fair reason for his dismissal. It meant that, at least temporarily, he was not entitled to drive buses, the role for which he had been employed. If not agreed, the amount of his award would be assessed at a further hearing.

Workplace Horseplay and Employers’ Responsibilities – Guideline Ruling

Irresponsible horseplay in the workplace can cause serious injury, but to what extent should employers be held indirectly – or vicariously – liable for such behaviour? The Court of Appeal considered that burning issue in a guideline case. A fitter was bending down to pick up a length of steel when a workmate placed two pellet targets on a bench close to his right ear. The workmate struck the targets with a hammer, causing a loud explosion. As a result, the fitter suffered noise-induced hearing…

Availability of Furlough Scheme Rendered Redundancy Unreasonable

A great many businesses were plunged into grave financial difficulties by the COVID-19 pandemic, but was it reasonable to make employees redundant at a time when the furlough scheme provided a less draconian option? An Employment Tribunal (ET) considered that issue in a ground-breaking case. A woman who was employed as a practice manager by a consultant surgeon was dismissed after the pandemic caused a downturn in the practice’s financial position. After she launched proceedings, an ET found…

Restrictive Covenants and Employers’ Legitimate Business Interests

When it comes to considering the enforceability or otherwise of restrictive covenants in employment contracts, judges are required to focus on the need of employers to protect their legitimate business interests. The Court of Appeal emphasised that point in a guideline case. A software company sought a pre-trial injunction against a former employee, alleging that he had breached a non-compete covenant in his employment contract. The covenant forbade him from working for a competitor for 12…