Claimant v Maritime and Coastguard Agency

The tribunal found that whilst the claimant had made protected disclosures, he had not shown that SB or GS were influenced by those disclosures when making the decisions to dismiss or uphold the dismissal. The tribunal accepted SB and GS's evidence that they held genuine beliefs about sustainability and were not influenced by the claimant's protected disclosures, nor by any messaging from others. The tribunal was unable to infer that SB had been influenced when the respondent had not been in a position to call witnesses allegedly responsible for that influence.

The tribunal found the instigation of the formal absence procedure was not a detriment on the ground of protected disclosures; the decision not to have a further meeting before dismissal was based on SB and HR's genuine interpretation of the policy and not influenced by the protected disclosures; and the failure to wait for the CT scan outcome and to seek further medical advice was SB's genuine decision based on his view that the Claimant would not return until August 2023 at the earliest and that sustaining the absence until then was unsustainable. The tribunal was satisfied the respondent showed the protected disclosures were not a material influence.

The tribunal found the claimant was a disabled person at the material time due to sciatica and arthritis affecting his back (lower back pain/sciatica). The tribunal found the respondent subjected the claimant to unfavourable treatment by dismissing him, and this was because of something arising in consequence of his disability, namely his sickness absence. The tribunal found the respondent's treatment was not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The respondent had failed to conduct as much investigation as would have been reasonable, and its conclusion that maintaining the claimant's absence until a potential phased return in August 2023 was unsustainable, was outside the reasonable range given the size and resources of the public body respondent and the absence of a properly thought-through plan about what dismissal would achieve in terms of resourcing.

The tribunal did not make express findings on the reasonable adjustments claim and dismissed it. The judgment concentrates on the section 15 discrimination arising from disability claim and unfair dismissal.

The tribunal found the respondent had a potentially fair reason (capability) but the dismissal was both substantively and procedurally unfair. The respondent had not carried out sufficient investigation into the sustainability of HQ consultancy work nor the plan for replacing the claimant, and failed to properly investigate the medical position. The respondent's conclusion that maintaining the claimant's absence until August 2023 was unsustainable was outside the band of reasonable responses. Procedurally, SB's detailed rationale was not shared with the claimant before dismissal, and there was inadequate clarity and notice that the claimant was at risk of dismissal at the second attendance meeting. The tribunal found the claimant should have had the opportunity to understand why dismissal was being considered, to comment on the rationale and evidence, and to arrange trade union representation at a clearly termed dismissal meeting.