Claimant v Amazon UK Services Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim issued out of time. Amendment application made 4 January 2023, six days after time limit expired on 27 December 2022. Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for claimant to have issued in time, particularly as he had articulated the claims in updated particulars on 22 December 2022 and was aware of time limits. Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claim.
Two allegations succeeded: UT5 (First Letter of Concern 19.08.2020) and UT15 (Final Letter of Concern 12.10.2021). Both letters included sanctions restricting the claimant's ability to transfer or apply for promotion, which tribunal found were unrelated to absence and sent a signal of punishment. Letters were badly phrased and conveyed sanction rather than support. Tribunal found less discriminatory alternatives existed. All other allegations dismissed as either not unfavourable treatment or proportionate means of achieving legitimate aim.
Tribunal found no breach of duty to make reasonable adjustments. Claimant failed to engage with occupational health and management during absence, almost to point of being obstructive. Did not suggest adjustments until appeal of dismissal. Applying NCH Scotland v McHugh and Doran principles, duty did not arise as claimant had not indicated return to work date. No evidence adjustments suggested would alleviate disadvantage or enable return to work.
Protected act was issuing tribunal claim on 15 February 2022. Dismissal occurred seven months later in September 2022. Claimant's own evidence pointed away from tribunal proceedings being cause of dismissal. No evidence Sandy Williamson (decision maker) had knowledge of claim. Tribunal found principal reason for dismissal was end of health process and claimant not giving return to work date, not the tribunal claim.
Facts
Claimant worked for Amazon as a warehouse associate from July 2016 to September 2022. He had chronic degenerative back pain from 2017 requiring adjustments (5 hours stowing, 5 hours trolley-pushing). He went on sick leave from 17 February 2020 and never returned. Over two years, respondent conducted multiple health review meetings, issued letters of concern, and sought occupational health reports. Claimant became increasingly uncooperative, refusing contact with managers, withholding final OH report, and not providing a firm return to work date. Dismissed September 2022 for incapability after prolonged absence.
Decision
Tribunal found claimant was disabled from September 2018. Unfair dismissal claim struck out as out of time. Two discrimination claims succeeded (UT5 and UT15) where letters of concern imposed sanctions (restrictions on transfers/promotions) that were disproportionate and punitive rather than supportive. Dismissal itself was found to be proportionate means of achieving legitimate aim given claimant's lack of cooperation and absence of return date after two years. Reasonable adjustments and victimisation claims failed.
Practical note
Health review processes must avoid language that appears punitive; restrictions on internal mobility during sickness absence may constitute disproportionate discrimination even within an otherwise legitimate attendance management policy.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3302180/2022
- Decision date
- 26 November 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 7
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- logistics
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Fulfilment Centre Associate
- Service
- 6 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No