Claimant v Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency

The tribunal found the respondent had a fair reason for dismissal (capability due to long-term sickness absence of over 7 months with no reliable indication of return to work). The dismissal and procedure fell within the band of reasonable responses. The tribunal found the respondent carried out a fair investigation, there were no suitable alternative roles available, and the claimant himself stated that retraining into an administrative role would aggravate his stress and anxiety. No procedural failings were identified.

The claimant withdrew this complaint during the proceedings and it was dismissed upon withdrawal.

The claimant withdrew this complaint during the proceedings and it was dismissed upon withdrawal.

The tribunal found that the claimant failed to establish the necessary causal link between his disabilities (Meniere's disease and memory problems from subarachnoid haemorrhage) and his absence from work. The tribunal found the claimant's absence was caused by stress and anxiety arising primarily from his growing disillusionment with his job and the grievance process, not from his disabilities. Medical evidence from Occupational Health and the claimant's GP certified stress and anxiety as the reason for absence, not the disability symptoms. The burden of establishing the causal link rested on the claimant and was not met.

The tribunal found that the proposed adjustments (allowing the claimant to undertake administrative duties or offering an alternative role) were not reasonable. There were no administrative duties available for the claimant whilst unfit to carry out his driving examiner role. The only alternative role available was an administrative role at the Lightbox, but the claimant himself stated on 6 July 2022 that retraining into such a role was likely to aggravate his stress and anxiety and would 'send it through the roof'. The tribunal was satisfied that offering this role was not a reasonable adjustment as it was unlikely to lead to a return to work or avoid the absence management procedure.

The tribunal found none of the alleged harassment incidents were made out. The allegation regarding showing a photograph to a colleague was not supported (no comment was made linking it to the claimant's disability). The allegation about repeatedly asking the claimant if he could remember the alarm key number was not upheld on the facts — the tribunal found only one direct comment was made, and it was not related to disability but to ensuring staff knew how to operate the alarm. The allegation about being told he was a health and safety risk on 21 July 2022 failed because the tribunal found he was told he needed to leave for 'medical reasons', not specifically due to memory issues. The reference to the claimant's self-declarations of being a health and safety liability in the dismissal letter was found not to have had the proscribed effect, as the claimant had repeatedly made this comment himself and neither he nor his representative raised it as objectionable during the appeal process.

The tribunal found that the payment in lieu of notice does not constitute 'wages' for the purposes of a section 13 claim, following the authority in Delaney v Staples. The payment made on termination was in relation to the period after employment was terminated, not wages properly so called.