In the case of Parnell v Royal Mail Group Ltd, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the decision to dismiss claims of disability discrimination, despite an employer failing to make reasonable adjustments.
The claimant worked for Royal Mail as a postman/ driver and had suffered from depression and anxiety since 2012, which significantly affected his ability to carry out day to day activities. Mr Parnell raised complaints of bullying and harassment against his manager in 2017 and Royal Mail concluded that the complaints were made in bad faith. The employer pursued misconduct proceedings against Mr Parnell which led to him going on long-term sick leave in January 2018.
In April 2018 Mr Parnell received a two-year serious warning for the complaints made in bad faith. The claimant refused to return until the warning was rescinded. Royal Mail refused to remove the warning and, after the expiry of this warning, the claimant still refused to return to work. In April 2020, the Royal Mail invited the claimant to a meeting to discuss adjustments for his return to work but Mr Parnell refused to attend. Consequently, Mr Parnell was dismissed in June 2020 due to an irretrievable breakdown in trust and confidence as Royal Mail concluded that there was nothing they could do to facilitate a return to work.
Mr Parnell brought 31 Employment Tribunal (ET) claims against his employer, which had been divided into two time periods, to be dealt with by two ETs. The first ET heard claims that related to events until early 2020 to include the allegations of bullying and harassment and the misconduct proceedings. The second ET heard claims beyond this point, to include the claims about the absence management procedure and the claimant’s dismissal.
The first ET dismissed all but two claims. It was upheld that Royal Mail had failed to make reasonable adjustments in failing to review the earlier finding of bad faith and failing to remove a two-year warning. Mr Parnell was awarded compensation for loss of earnings to January 2020 when his income was reduced on sick leave, prior to his dismissal.
The second ET dismissed all claims and found that any unfavourable treatment was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The legitimate aim was identified as regular and reliable staff attendance, and the requirement for those on long term sickness absence to do all they can to meet with managers to discuss reasonable adjustments to return to work. They held that dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving this aim. The claimant appealed this decision but the appeal was dismissed by the EAT as the warning had expired during the period it was concerned with, so removing the warning would not have been a reasonable adjustment.
This case highlights the nuances of considerations over reasonable adjustments at every stage of internal proceedings. In this case, whilst dismissal was considered lawful, it was an earlier and seemingly less significant decision that created liability for the employer.
How Moore Barlow can help
If you need a business employment solicitor, Moore Barlow can help you navigate complex employment laws and regulations, ensuring that your business is compliant and protected. We offer advice on hiring and firing, contracts and policies, discrimination and harassment, and much more. With our expertise, you can focus on running your business while we handle the legal details.
