The Claimant was a police officer recognised as disabled by the PSNI and carrying out adjusted duties in the Telephone Resolution Unit. When  999 and 101 call handler staff numbers were impacted by industrial action the Claimant was asked to carry out this role to cover the strike days. It was acknowledged that the Claimant did not have the training normally required to conduct the role, but that given the unusual circumstances, a senior officer would be taking full responsibility for any shortcomings within the service arising from this lack of training.

The tribunal was not satisfied that the Claimant’s new duties undermined or compromised the reasonable adjustments that had been made for him.[71]
 
It also found that he had been given “cast-iron assurances” that the risk would be borne by the chain of command and not him. [73]

The tribunal concluded that what at the outset might reasonably have been the Claimant seeking legitimate reassurance about the limits of his responsibilities descended into a stand-off between him and his superiors, which he had no intention to resolve. The tribunal found it was more likely to be a “personal unwillingness to perform the…role than a genuine and legitimate concern for his disability.”  [74]

The tribunal heard evidence from a covert recording made by the Claimant but could not dispel the “clear possibility of concoction by the claimant of the recorded ‘sound effects’ of his apparent distress…and concluded…they were more likely than not manufactured by him for the purpose of the recording. “

The tribunal found at [79] that what was being asked of the Claimant was reasonably assessed to be within his range of skills. The change to the Claimant’s role was carefully considered in all the circumstances and was not motivated by his disability. It further found that there had been no victimisation or harassment of the Claimant. His claims were dismissed in their entirety.

PILKINGTON UK LTD v MR A JONES [2023] EAT 90
For the full decision click HERE
 

The Claimant was employed for 40 years by the respondent glass manufacturer. He was signed off on long-term sick leave in 2018 with a debilitating shoulder condition. An OH assessment found him to be permanently incapable of manual work. Whilst on sick leave the Respondent was informed he was undertaking manual work and set about surveilling him to prove it. He was observed accompanying a friend delivering potatoes, albeit that they were in relatively small packages and presumed to be working. He was investigated for gross misconduct for carrying out manual work whilst on sick leave and dismissed. He brought a claim for unfavourable treatment arising in consequence of his disability. The ET found in his favour. The Respondent appealed. 

The EAT concluded that the sickness absence arose from disability and the investigation and surveillance arose from the same reason. He was dismissed for the erroneous belief that he was working during that  sickness and this led to the unfavourable treatment. On that basis, the EAT held that this satisfied s15 of the Equality Act.

⚖️ EAT finds that a taxi driver could not simultaneously be a worker of the taxi operator and an employee of the shareholder.

⚖️EAT finds that a dismissal was still fair despite the dismissing manager not meeting the person dismissed.

⚖️EAT finds that employers were not under a legal obligation to calculate an employee’s furloughed salary according to the formula set down under the regulations. 

⚖️Baker dismissed for making holey bread secures £15k against employer due to procedural unfairness.

⚖️Royal Mail to pay record £2m to bullied whistleblower.

⚖️Twitter commences legal action claiming that ex-Twitter staff now working for Meta helped to create new rival service “Threads.”

⚖️Labour MP presents a bill to Parliament to introduce a free-standing statutory definition of workplace bullying absent the grounds of a protected characteristic.

⚖️High Court quashes regulations allowing workers on strike to be replaced by agency workers.

⚖️EAT dismisses appeal that the post-decision tweets of an ET Lay Member did not give rise to bias when applying the fairminded observer test of Porter v Magill.

⚖️ EAT finds that tribunal erred in finding that an NHS employee had a no material change contract imposed, rather than a “Hogg dismissal”

⚖️ Fife Council’s job evaluation scheme did not meet the requirements of the Equality Act in landmark equal pay ruling affecting over 1,200 claimants.