Claimant v Baker Hughes Energy Technology UK Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The majority found that while the claimant was treated unfavourably by exclusion from the Fullstream Bonus Scheme after 26 weeks' sickness absence, this was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims of encouraging and motivating active employees and rewarding their contributions. The claimant received full pay and bonus eligibility for 26 weeks, then 75% income protection thereafter, and extending bonus eligibility would undermine the incentive structure.
The tribunal unanimously found that the eligibility requirement was a PCP, but it did not place the claimant at a substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled employees absent for the same period (who would also be ineligible after 26 weeks). The proposed adjustment of excluding all disability-related absences indefinitely was not reasonable, as it would not enable return to work and potentially removed any incentive to return.
Facts
The claimant, a Senior Systems Engineer employed since November 2013, was diagnosed with aggressive metastatic melanoma in January 2022 and has been continuously absent from work since. He received full sick pay and bonus eligibility for 26 weeks, then moved onto Group Income Protection paying 75% of pensionable salary. The respondent's Fullstream Bonus Scheme excluded employees on long-term sick leave (beyond 26 weeks) from eligibility. The claimant grieved this exclusion, arguing it discriminated against him due to his disability-related absence, particularly regarding the 70% company performance element of the bonus which was not linked to individual performance. His grievance and appeal were rejected.
Decision
The tribunal found (by majority) that while the claimant suffered unfavourable treatment by exclusion from the bonus scheme after 26 weeks, this was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims of incentivising and rewarding active employees. The tribunal unanimously found no failure to make reasonable adjustments, as non-disabled employees absent for the same period would be treated identically, and the proposed adjustment of indefinitely excluding disability absences was not reasonable as it would not facilitate return to work. Both claims were dismissed.
Practical note
Excluding long-term sick employees from performance bonuses after 26 weeks can be justified as proportionate where employees receive full pay and bonus eligibility during that period plus income protection thereafter, and the bonus scheme's purpose is to incentivise and reward active contributions to company performance.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8001281/2024
- Decision date
- 19 August 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- energy
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Senior Systems Engineer (EPC)
- Salary band
- £80,000–£100,000
- Service
- 11 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No