Claimant v Iceland Foods Limited

The tribunal found that the respondent dismissed the claimant for capability/ill health, a potentially fair reason. The dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses given the 22-month absence, lack of clear return date, previous failed therapies, operational pressures covering the supervisor role, and absence of adjustments that would enable immediate return. The respondent adequately consulted, obtained three OH reports, held two capability hearings, and reasonably discounted alternative employment as the claimant was unfit for any work.

The tribunal accepted the claimant was dismissed due to long-term sickness absence arising from her disabilities (epilepsy, pernicious anaemia, anxiety and depression), which was unfavourable treatment. However, the dismissal was objectively justified as a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of maintaining the workforce at work. Balancing factors included the 22-month absence, unclear prognosis, previous failed CBT, operational pressures, and absence of reasonable adjustments that would enable return. The respondent had already deferred dismissal at an earlier January 2023 hearing without the claimant returning.

The tribunal found no evidence of a PCP requiring a minimum level of attendance; the respondent treated long-term absence cases individually. Even if such a PCP existed, it would not have been a reasonable adjustment to await the outcome of further CBT before dismissal given the 22-month absence, previous failed therapies, unclear duration of further treatment with a trainee therapist, operational pressures, and the fact the respondent had already deferred dismissal in January 2023. Redeployment was not reasonable as the claimant was unfit for any work.

There was no evidence that a hypothetical comparator with the same lengthy sickness absence and lack of clear return date, but without the claimant's disabilities, would have been treated more favourably. The tribunal found any employee with equivalent lengthy absence and unclear prognosis would also have been dismissed. The claim failed as there was no less favourable treatment.