Claimant v Royal Mail Group Limited

The tribunal found the respondent dismissed the claimant for some other substantial reason (poor attendance) which was a fair reason. The respondent followed its attendance policy fairly, issuing AR1, AR2, and conducting a proper dismissal meeting and appeal. The claimant's absences were genuine but not disability-related. The decision to dismiss fell within the range of reasonable responses available to a reasonable employer given the claimant's consistently poor attendance record over many years despite previous leniency.

While the respondent conceded the claimant was disabled (ASD) and had knowledge from 14 July 2023, the tribunal found no causal link between the claimant's disability and the reason for dismissal. The claimant's sickness absences (for genuine reasons such as flu, wrist pain, knee pain, dizziness) were not ASD-related. The claimant did not provide evidence his absences arose from his ASD, and the tribunal rejected his argument that ASD impaired his understanding of the attendance policy. The 'something arising' (poor attendance) did not arise in consequence of disability.

The tribunal found the duty to make reasonable adjustments did not arise because there was no substantial disadvantage caused by the claimant's disability. The claimant's absences were not disability-related and his ASD did not impair his understanding of the attendance policy. There was no causative link between the PCP (requirement to maintain attendance standards) and any disadvantage arising from disability. The claimant failed to provide medical or other evidence during his employment linking his absences to ASD, only doing internet research after dismissal which was insufficient.

Withdrawn by claimant at preliminary hearing on 27 June 2024.