Claimant v Mitie Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the respondent failed to obtain an up-to-date Occupational Health report before dismissing, despite clear medical evidence (Med3 dated 4 December 2023) suggesting the claimant could return to work with adjustments in the foreseeable future. This was outside the range of reasonable responses. The respondent also failed to follow its own Absence policy requiring an OH report at stage 2. At appeal, material inaccuracies in notes and failure to let claimant check them before decision took the appeal decision outside the range of reasonable responses.
The tribunal accepted the respondent's legitimate aim of running its business efficiently, but found dismissal was not a proportionate means of achieving that aim. The respondent failed to consider adjustments explicitly raised in the Med3 and failed to commission an OH report that would likely have provided a return-to-work date and recommended adjustments. The length of absence alone was not enough to justify dismissal given the medical evidence showing prospect of return with adjustments.
The respondent had a PCP requiring security officers to be relatively fit and stand for prolonged periods, which put the claimant at a substantial disadvantage. The tribunal found adjustments such as transfer to a sedentary role (e.g. CCTV operative), phased return, adjusted shift patterns had a real prospect of enabling the claimant's return to work by June 2024. The respondent failed to refer the claimant to OH to properly explore these adjustments, despite medical evidence (Med3 and surgeon's letter) suggesting adjustments could enable return. The respondent unreasonably failed to consider these adjustments before dismissing.
Facts
The claimant, a security officer with 17.5 years' service, was off work continuously from September 2021 to January 2024 due to arthritis requiring bilateral knee replacements. His left knee replacement went well, but the right knee (operated April 2022) had complications and slower recovery. By December 2023, his surgeon's Med3 stated he was 'not fit to work' but 'may benefit from workplace adaptations' and 'may be able to undertake amended duties'. The surgeon's contemporaneous letter to the GP noted the claimant was continuing to improve and recommended amended duties/workplace changes as he could not be on his feet all day. The respondent dismissed him on 4 January 2024 for long-term incapability without obtaining an updated Occupational Health report, despite HR repeatedly suggesting one. The claimant's appeal was dismissed in May 2024, again without seeking OH advice, and based in part on inaccurate meeting notes the claimant was not given opportunity to correct.
Decision
The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair because it was outside the range of reasonable responses to dismiss without obtaining an up-to-date OH report when medical evidence (the Med3 and surgeon's letter) suggested the claimant could return with adjustments in the foreseeable future. The tribunal also found discrimination arising from disability (dismissal was not a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim) and failure to make reasonable adjustments (transfer to sedentary role such as CCTV operator, phased return, adjusted shifts) which had a real prospect of enabling return by June 2024. The respondent unreasonably failed to explore these despite clear medical evidence and repeated HR prompts.
Practical note
Employers must obtain up-to-date medical evidence, particularly Occupational Health reports, before dismissing for long-term sickness absence when there is evidence suggesting possible return with adjustments, even after a lengthy absence — internal HR advice to do so should not be ignored.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2219585/2024
- Decision date
- 22 September 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 5
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Mitie Limited
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Security Officer
- Service
- 18 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep