Mr B Garcha-Singh v British Airways Plc
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Williams,Charles Lord,Steven Torrance |
| Subject Matter | Not landmark |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Published date | 26 July 2023 |
Judgment approved by the court for handing down Mr Garcha-Singh v British Airways Plc
© EAT 2023 Page 1 [2023] EAT 97
Neutral Citation Number: [2023] EAT 97
Case No: EA-2022-000148-OO
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
Date: 26 July 2023
Before:
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE HEATHER WILLIAMS DBE
CHARLES EDWARD LORD OBE
STEVEN JOHN WILLIAM TORRANCE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
MR B. GARCHA-SINGH Appellant
- and -
BRITISH AIRWAYS PLC
Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Carolyn D’Souza (instructed by Premier Solicitors) for the Appellant
Katharine Newton KC (instructed by Harrison Clark Rickerbys Limited) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 7 June 2023
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
Judgment approved by the court for handing down Mr Garcha-Singh v British Airways Plc
© EAT 2023 Page 2 [2023] EAT 97
SUMMARY
UNFAIR DISMISSAL
The claimant’s appeal against the Employment Tribunal’s (“ET”) dismissal of his claim for unfair
dismissal failed.
The claimant was employed as Cabin Crew Long Haul. He was dismissed by reason of incapability,
following lengthy sickness absence. The decision to terminate his contract of employment was made
on 31 August 2017 and was due to take effect on 5 January 2018. Thereafter, the respondent extended
the termination date on seven occasions and in December 2018 declined to extend it further. The
claimant’s effective date of termination was 21 December 2018. At the time when the termination
decision was made in August 2017 the claimant had been unable to fly for over a year. The
respondent’s absence management policy (“AMP”) was incorporated into the claimant’s contract of
employment. The policy could only be changed at national level.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) rejected the contention that the successive extensions to
the claimant’s termination date constituted a deviation from the AMP and a breach of his contract.
The AMP envisaged a decision, in the singular, to terminate an employee’s employment and
identified the steps to be taken before making that decision (about which there was no complaint in
this case). However, it did not prevent a manager from subsequently postponing the termination date
for the employee’s benefit, as had occurred here on the ET’s findings. In the alternative, the ET had
found in respect of the wrongful dismissal claim that there had been no breach of contract and that
conclusion was not the subject of a live appeal.
Even if the successive postponements of the termination date had amounted to a breach of contract
(contrary to the EAT’s primary conclusion) it would not follow that the dismissal was unfair. The
tribunal still had to ask itself whether the procedure adopted by the employer was within the range of
reasonable responses. It was quite clear from the ET’s findings that in this case there was no
substantive unfairness to the claimant and that each of the extensions was to his advantage.
The EAT also rejected contentions that the absence of an appeal from the 21 December 2018 decision
Judgment approved by the court for handing down Mr Garcha-Singh v British Airways Plc
© EAT 2023 Page 3 [2023] EAT 97
was a breach of the claimant’s contract and that the ET erred in failing to find that the respondent’s
approach to the appeal was outside of the band of reasonable responses. Pursuant to the AMP, the
claimant was entitled to an appeal from the decision to terminate his employment. On the ET’s
findings he was given this, namely a full and fair appeal against the decision to dismiss him, which
he initiated in July 2018 and was determined in October 2018. Furthermore, the ET lawfully found
that the additional matters that the claimant wanted to raise in December 2018, had he been given a
further appeal, added “very little to what had gone before” and did not address the respondent’s reason
for terminating his employment.
To continue reading
Request your trial