Claimant v South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust

The tribunal found that the dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. The claimant had 26 periods of absence over two years, with no clear prognosis for return to normal duties. The respondent followed its Managing Health and Attendance Policy properly, made referrals to occupational health, considered alternative duties, and consulted with the claimant throughout. The decision to dismiss due to capability (ill health) was reasonable in all the circumstances.

The tribunal accepted the dismissal was unfavourable treatment because of something arising from disability (the absences), but found it was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The claimant's level of absence was genuinely unsustainable — ambulances could not go out and the claimant's position effectively became supernumerary. The respondent properly considered disability, made adjustments, and followed policy. The scale of absences justified taking disability-related sickness into account.

The tribunal found that the first alleged PCP (requiring employees to perform full contractual duties to avoid dismissal) did not apply — the respondent considered alternative duties, reduced hours, and phased returns. Regarding the second PCP (attendance thresholds), the adjustments sought by the claimant (alternative duties, more time, not dismissing) would not have alleviated the disadvantage as the claimant was unfit for any work for long periods and had no prognosis for return at the time of dismissal.