East Lindsey District Council v Daubney
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Date | 1977 |
| Year | 1977 |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
Industrial Relations - Unfair dismissal - Reasonableness of dismissal - Incapacity due to ill health - Medical report obtained by employers - Failure by employers to consult employee - Sufficiency of medical evidence - Whether employers acted reasonably
The employee, a surveyor, was absent from work for long periods because of illness. In June 1975 the employers' personnel director wrote to the district community physician asking him to indicate whether the employee's “health [was] such that he should be retired on grounds of permanent ill health.” The physician asked another doctor to examine the employee and on the basis of his report replied to the personnel director's letter that the employee was unfit and should be retired. On July 23 the employers wrote to the employee dismissing him. On the employee's complaint of unfair dismissal, an industrial tribunal found that although his inability to perform his duties was a reason justifying dismissal within paragraph 6 (2) of Schedule 1 to the
On the employers' appeal: —
Held, dismissing the appeal, (1) that, although it was not the function of employers or of industrial tribunals to act as a medical appeal tribunal to review advice received from medical advisers, the decision whether or not to dismiss an employee was not a medical question but had to be taken by employers in the light of available medical advice which should be requested in such a way as to enable them to make an informed decision; that a report merely stating that an employee was unfit to carry out his duties and should be retired on the ground of permanent ill health was verging on the inadequate but, in the circumstances, the report would have been sufficient to have enabled the employers to act on it after they had discussed the situation with the employee (post, p. 571C–F).
(2) That except in exceptional circumstances employers should take such steps as were sensible in the circumstances to consult the employee and inform themselves of the true medical position before dismissing him on the ground of ill health; that, since the employee was not consulted, the dismissal was unfair (post pp. 571H–572B).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment:
Sherratt (David) Ltd. v. Williams (unreported), March 8, 1977,
Spencer v. Paragon Wallpapers Ltd. [
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Edwards v. Bairstow [
Owen v. Funditor Ltd. [
Watling v. William Bird & Son Contractors Ltd. (
Appeal from an industrial tribunal sitting at Lincoln.
The employers, East Lindsey District Council, appealed from a decision of the industrial tribunal on November 18, 1976, that the employee, George Edward Daubney, had been unfairly dismissed. They appealed on the grounds that the tribunal had erred in law in finding that the employers ought to have given the employee the opportunity of seeking an independent medical opinion and that they ought not to have required the employers to investigate the opinion of an experienced medical adviser.
The facts are stated in the judgment.
Richard Yorke Q.C. and Richard Swain for the employers.
George Dobry Q.C. and Joseph Harper for the employee.
April 20. Phillips J. read the following judgment of the appeal tribunal. The employee was one day short of his 57th birthday when, on November 13, 1975, he was dismissed by the East Lindsey District Council by whom he had been employed as principal assistant (building) surveyor. Previously, the employee had been employed by the Horncastle Rural District Council in various capacities since 1959, and had reached the post of surveyor and public health officer. As the result of the local government reorganisation the rural district council ceased to exist on April 1, 1974, and the employee was offered and accepted employment with the East Lindsey District Council.
The employee's employment came to an end as a result of a letter to him from the employers dated July 23, 1975. It read:
“Dear Mr. Daubney,
“As you are already aware the authority has requested its medical adviser to submit a report on the state of your health together with his recommendation. I have now received that report from the district community physician and he has indicated that in his opinion the state of your health is such that you are unable to carry out the duties of your post and recommends that you be enabled to retire immediately on the grounds of ill health.
“The chairman of the council has instructed me to write to you and indicate that the authority accepts the advice and recommendation of the district community...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
B.s. V. Dundee City Council
... ... of appropriate steps to discover the true medical position: Daubney v East Lindsey District Council , [1977] ICR 556. They held that the ... ...
- Williamson v Alcan (UK) Ltd
-
Ms Halima Aziz v The Crown Prosecution Service: 1800269/2016
...referred also to the case of Spencer –v- Paragon Wallpaper Limited [1976] IRLR 373. Reference was also made to East Lindsey DC –vDaubney [1977] IRLR 181 and the guidance that if an employer takes sensible steps to inform himself of the true medical position of an employee then that will be ......
-
Mr I T Pattison v The Secretary of State for Justice: 2500213/2020
...0561/03, applying J Sainsbury plc v Hitt [2003] ICR 111. The Tribunal acknowledges that while East Lindsay District Council v Daubney [1977] IRLR 181 is accepted as being a leading authority on medical investigation in the context of a fair capability dismissal, the well-established princip......
-
The Curse of the Working Classes: Alcohol as a Workplace Issue
...to the notice of the employers' medical advisers, will cause them to change their opinion (East Lindsey District Council v. Daubney, [1977] IRLR 181). 40 PERSONNEL REVIEW 19,5 The importance of individual consultation with the employee has been established in cases involving drink (Liverpoo......