Claimant v Student Loans Company Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
Tribunal found claim was out of time. Additionally, on merits, tribunal found PCP of requiring claimant to work in office during return from sick leave in January 2023 was justified by business needs; claimant's role in pre-assessment team involved manual processing of mail that could not be done from home; no reasonable adjustment of full home working could be made as there was insufficient work.
Claim was time-barred. On merits, tribunal found alleged harassment (questioning during welfare calls in February 2023 about health and court attendance) did not occur as alleged, or where questioning did occur it was standard absence management practice with purpose of understanding illness and providing support, not to violate dignity or create hostile environment.
Tribunal found no less favourable treatment because of Muslim religion. Request for Ramadan holidays was treated same as other employees when leave was over-allocated (all required to provide details). Request for home working/unpaid leave not refused but claimant went off sick before decision made. Alleged questioning about religion not proven. Treatment during Covid same as comparators under respondent's Covid policy.
Flexible working request claim under s.80G ERA 1996 was out of time. Claimant made formal flexible working request in December 2022 regarding core hours adjustment, which was approved. Earlier informal discussions in August 2022 did not constitute a formal flexible working application. Claim filed in January 2024 was beyond three month time limit.
Dismissal for capability (ill health) was fair. Respondent consulted with claimant throughout absence; obtained occupational health report; considered alternatives including redeployment, home working, reduced hours, career break; followed fair procedure with capability hearing and appeal. Claimant absent from 26 January 2023, no foreseeable return date, no suitable alternative roles available. Tribunal found respondent could not reasonably be expected to wait longer and acted reasonably in dismissing.
Facts
Claimant, a part-time Student Finance Administrator with 12 years' service, was dismissed for capability after long-term sickness absence from 26 January 2023 to December 2023 due to long-Covid, arthritis, type 2 diabetes and mental health conditions. Her role involved manual processing of incoming mail which could not be done from home, especially during peak periods. Occupational health assessed her as unfit for role with no foreseeable return date. She alleged discrimination during her absence regarding working from home requests, Ramadan leave requests, and welfare questioning after attending the Sheku Bayoh inquiry while off sick.
Decision
Tribunal dismissed all claims. Discrimination and flexible working claims were out of time. On merits, no less favourable treatment or harassment proven. Unfair dismissal claim failed because employer had consulted throughout absence, obtained medical evidence, considered redeployment and adjustments, but claimant remained unfit with no return date foreseeable. Dismissal was fair and reasonable given length of absence and business needs. Respondent's application for costs following postponement was refused.
Practical note
An employer facing long-term sickness absence can fairly dismiss for capability where they consult, obtain medical evidence, explore alternatives including redeployment, but the employee remains unfit with no foreseeable return date, even where the employee is disabled and seeking to work from home.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8000069/2024
- Decision date
- 27 March 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Student Finance Administrator
- Service
- 13 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No