ET Should Have Considered Redeployment as Alternative to Dismissal

There are times when it is incumbent on an Employment Tribunal (ET) to consider a point of its own accord if the parties in the case have not raised it. In a recent case, a postal worker successfully argued before the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) that the ET should have considered whether…

Jun 07, 2024

Kutan ural ycxbgq7nua8 unsplash 741x1024

There are times when it is incumbent on an Employment Tribunal (ET) to consider a point of its own accord if the parties in the case have not raised it. In a recent case, a postal worker successfully argued before the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) that the ET should have considered whether redeploying him would have been a suitable alternative to dismissal.

The man had worked for his employer for more than 25 years. After several periods of absence between 2015 and 2019, some of which were disability-related, he was dismissed following the application of the employer’s attendance management policy. He brought an ET claim alleging disability discrimination and unfair dismissal.

Dismissing his disability discrimination claim, the ET agreed with the employer that discounting his disability-related absences was not a reasonable adjustment to make and that he would in any event have been dismissed on the basis of his non-disability-related absences. The ET also rejected his unfair dismissal claim, finding that his dismissal was reasonable in the circumstances and there were no procedural failings.

The man appealed to the EAT on the grounds that the ET had erred in law in failing to consider the possibility of redeploying him, both as a reasonable adjustment and as an alternative to dismissal. The possibility had not been raised before the ET, but the man argued that it was an obvious point that the ET should have raised itself.

The EAT found that, on the particular facts of the case, the ET had not erred in failing to consider the possibility of redeployment as a reasonable adjustment. However, it should have been raised in the context of the unfair dismissal claim. The question necessarily had to be considered in order to establish whether dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses open to the employer. The EAT also noted that both the Acas Guide to Discipline and Grievances at Work and the employer’s own attendance management policy stated that redeployment should be considered. The man’s unfair dismissal claim was remitted to the same ET for reconsideration.

What is a Detriment? EAT Ruling Clearly Sets Out the Correct Legal Test

The question of whether someone has suffered a ‘detriment’ is the central issue in a great many employment cases where discrimination or victimisation is alleged. In an important decision, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has given authoritative guidance on the correct legal test to be applied in such cases. When applying to become a police officer, a man at the outset disclosed to the force concerned that he was in the process of pursuing an employment claim against another force, alleging…

Workplace Disputes and ‘Without Prejudice’ Discussions – Guideline Ruling

Litigation should always be a last resort and, as an Employment Tribunal (ET) ruling made plain, it is very much in the public interest to encourage employers to embark on confidential, without prejudice discussions with a view to achieving a non-confrontational resolution of workplace disputes. The case concerned a local authority employee who suffered from mental ill health and had been off work for some time. After he complained of alleged discrimination, a senior manager invited him to a…

Work From Home Dispute Raises Key Issue for the Modern Workplace

As the employment landscape continues to shift in the post-pandemic era, employees and employers can find themselves at odds when it comes to expectations of flexible and remote working. The issue was brought to light at Employment Tribunal (ET) proceedings centred on a woman’s request to work from home. The woman had been employed by a financial regulator since 2005. Her initial contract indicated that her normal place of work would be at a physical office location. This changed in early 2020…