Claimant v John Lewis Plc

The tribunal found the dismissal was for capability due to ill health, a potentially fair reason. The respondent acted within the band of reasonable responses. Various reasonable adjustments had been made but absences remained static at around 15-16% with no prospect of improvement. The short-notice, unpredictable nature of absences caused operational difficulties. A fair process was followed, including an independent appeal, and the decision to dismiss was reasonable in all the circumstances.

The claimant alleged the PCP was a 3% sickness absence trigger. The tribunal found this PCP was not applied to the claimant — he was dealt with under the long-term sickness policy, not the short-term disciplinary policy. His absence was around 15%, far above any 3% threshold. The tribunal also found the respondent had in fact made multiple reasonable adjustments (role change, reduced hours, breaks, moving away from cold areas) which had no material impact on absence levels.

The tribunal accepted the claimant's sickness absence arose in consequence of his disabilities (heart disease/angina and Crohn's disease) and that dismissal was unfavourable treatment because of that absence. However, the respondent established that dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims including operational effectiveness, meeting customer demand, ensuring a reliable workforce, and fair allocation of work. The tribunal found reasonable adjustments had been exhausted, the absence pattern had a significant negative effect on the business, and no less discriminatory means could achieve the aims.