Claimant v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Tribunal found that the PCP of delay in delivering timely disciplinary outcome was not established and that claimant did not identify what adjustments would have removed the substantial disadvantage. Similarly, for the PCP of considering dismissal/demotion after six months' sickness absence, tribunal found claimant failed to identify what adjustments were required. Tribunal found no breach of duty to make reasonable adjustments in relation to requiring attendance at work.

Tribunal found that while the absence from 22-25 September 2020 arose in consequence of disability (PNH causing fatigue and stress), the respondent's treatment (treating absence as misconduct leading to dismissal) was a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims of managing absences fairly, dealing with unauthorised absence, and dealing with repeat misconduct. Tribunal found it was Mr Ahmed's failure to explain or account for his absence that led to dismissal, not the absence itself.

Tribunal accepted that prior Employment Tribunal claims were protected acts. However, tribunal found on the facts that none of the alleged detriments (treating absence as gross misconduct, deciding to deduct wages, referring for dismissal/demotion, dismissing for repeat misconduct, not upholding appeal) were done because Mr Ahmed had done a protected act. Tribunal found decisions were made for operational reasons related to Mr Ahmed's conduct and absence, not because of his previous claims.

Tribunal found that the treatment complained of (excessive time taken in disciplinary, deduction of wages, treating 4 days absence as gross misconduct, decision to dismiss, upholding dismissal) was not because of Mr Ahmed's race (Pakistani). Tribunal found the treatment was due to his conduct and failure to account for absence. Tribunal concluded a hypothetical white comparator in the same circumstances would have been treated the same way. Many complaints against named individuals were withdrawn during the hearing.

Tribunal found the reason for dismissal was repeat misconduct (unauthorised absence while subject to final written warning) which was a potentially fair reason. Tribunal found the decision-maker (Mrs Rahman) had a genuine belief in guilt on reasonable grounds after reasonable investigation. Dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses. Tribunal found Mr Ahmed's failure to account for his 4-day absence in September 2020 despite numerous opportunities was the cause of dismissal. However, tribunal would have reduced any compensatory award by 100% for contributory conduct in any event.

Respondent conceded a claim for untaken annual leave on termination. 441 hours were accepted as due. Tribunal calculated £1,815.20 was outstanding after crediting payments already made.