REWARD
Employment law latest
Nicola Mullineux, senior employment specialist for Peninsula, explores the interesting outcomes of three different recent employment law cases
Williams v Newport City Council In this case, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) had to consider whether the employment tribunal (ET) were correct in finding that certain work-related duties were not day-to-day activities within the definition of a disability under the Equality Act 2010. The claimant had been traumatised by a previous court appearance, so when they were told by the respondent that they would be required to attend court as part of their duties, it triggered a severe anxiety reaction and a significant absence from work. During the period of the absence, the requirement to attend court wasn’t removed from their duties. The claimant raised an internal grievance against this decision, but this was unsuccessful at both the initial stage and on appeal, on the basis that the respondent claimed this was an ‘essential element’ to the claimant’s duties. According to medical reports at the time, the claimant’s GP’s expert opinion was that they would remain unfit to work while the requirement to attend court remained. The claimant was dismissed following the organisation’s managing attendance procedure after some 18 months’ sickness absence. The claimant brought a disability discrimination claim.
It was found by the ET that the claimant had a mental impairment from the time they went off sick through to when they were dismissed. However, prior to the dismissal, the claimant’s health had improved to the point where they could have performed all their duties, apart from attending court. As this wasn’t a normal day-to-day activity, the claimant at that time was not a disabled person for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. In making this decision, the ET considered that the claimant lived alone and didn’t need assistance with any household tasks. As a result, the case was dismissed. The claimant appealed. That the claimant was unable to attend work due to a mental impairment was accepted by both the respondent and the ET and supported by medical evidence. The only proper conclusion that the ET could have come to, according to the
EAT, was that the claimant was impaired throughout the material period and that the impairment had a substantial adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to- day activities. Following this reasoning, the ET could only properly have found that the effect of this impairment was long- term and therefore potentially sufficient to meet the definition of disability. Key to this determination was whether the inability to attend work due to the requirement to attend court was sufficiently within day-to- day activities. The EAT held that the ET had failed to consider its own findings in relation to the claimant’s anxiety at the prospect of being asked to attend court, as it meant that they were not fit to return to work at all, unless or until, the respondent removed this requirement from their duties. The EAT was critical of the ET’s failure to explain its reasoning around whether this requirement
“The Employment Appeal Tribunal had to consider whether the employment tribunal were correct in finding that certain work- related duties were not day-to-day activities within the definition of a disability under the Equality Act 2010”
| Professional in Payroll, Pensions and Reward | February 2024 | Issue 97 48
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker