Claimant v Rentokil Initial UK Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that while the respondent operated PCPs (allocating workload and applying a sick absence policy), the respondent did not know or could not reasonably be expected to know that the claimant would suffer a substantial disadvantage from these PCPs. The claimant did not raise issues about his work allocation when he returned in January 2023, indicated work was fine, and did not have further absences until August 2023. The respondent took reasonable steps including phased return, welfare meetings, and exploring adjustments when the claimant was absent from August 2023.
While the tribunal accepted that dismissal was unfavourable treatment because of something arising from disability (sick absence), it was justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The respondent had legitimate aims of effective sick absence management and service management. The claimant had two long-term absences totalling over 12 months, was unfit to return with no foreseeable return date per the February 2024 fit note stating he would not benefit from any adjustments. The respondent's needs outweighed the impact on the claimant.
The tribunal found the dismissal was for a potentially fair reason (ill health capability) and that the respondent acted within the band of reasonable responses. The respondent took reasonable steps to ascertain the medical position through welfare meetings and occupational health referrals, consulted with the claimant, considered alternatives including adjustments and redeployment, followed a fair procedure, and gave the claimant notice entitlement and right of appeal. The claimant was unfit to work with no foreseeable return date.
The tribunal found insufficient evidence to determine the holiday pay calculation and noted subsequent payments were made in July 2024 which related to an employer counter-claim. The tribunal decided not to dismiss this claim at this stage pending resolution of the counter-claim and further clarification of holiday entitlements and payments.
Facts
The claimant was a service technician employed for 22 years who suffered lower back pain. He was absent from June 2022 to January 2023, returned to work on a phased basis with amended duties, worked full-time from February 2023, then was absent again from August 2023. Medical evidence indicated he was unfit to work with no foreseeable return date. The respondent held welfare meetings, obtained occupational health reports, and conducted ill health capability meetings before dismissing the claimant in March 2024 with 12 weeks' pay in lieu of notice.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. The claimant was a disabled person from January 2023, but the respondent did not fail to make reasonable adjustments as it did not know or could not reasonably know he would suffer substantial disadvantage, and took reasonable steps when aware. The discrimination arising from disability claim failed as dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims. The unfair dismissal claim failed as the dismissal was for a potentially fair reason and within the band of reasonable responses. The wages claim was not determined pending resolution of a counter-claim.
Practical note
Employers can fairly dismiss long-term sick employees even where disability is accepted, provided they obtain proper medical evidence, genuinely consult, consider alternatives, and can show no foreseeable return to work.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 4105993/2024
- Decision date
- 23 May 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Service Technician
- Service
- 23 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep