Mr B Gentry v Royal Mail Group Ltd: 2206769/2018
| Judgment Date | 02 March 2020 |
| Citation | 2206769/2018 |
| Published date | 26 March 2020 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal |
Case Number: 2206769/2018
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant Respondent
Mr B Gentry
V
Royal Mail Group Limited
Heard at: London Central On: 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16 January 2020
and 20 and 23 January 2020 (chambers)
Before: Employment Judge Joffe
Ms K A Church
Dr V Weerasinghe
Representation
For the Claimant: Mrs L Gentry, lay representative
For the Respondent: Ms S Hobson, solicitor
RESERVED JUDGMENT
1. The respondent unfairly dismissed the claimant, contrary to sections 94
and 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996.
2. The claimant was a disabled person at relevant times and the respondent
ought reasonably to have know that he was disabled.
Case Number: 2206769/2018
2
3. The claimant’s complaints of disability discrimination were presented in
time. Alternatively we exercise our discretion to hear any complaints which
were presented out of time.
4. The respondent discriminated against the claimant contrary to section 15
Equality Act 2010 in telling him that it was going to commence the SPI
process, by moving him to Victoria DO for a period in February 2018 and
by subjecting him to a disciplinary process for gross misconduct. The
respondent did not prove that any of that treatment was a proportionate
means of achieving a legitimate aim.
5. The respondent breached duties to make reasonable adjustments in
respect of the following PCPs:
5.1 Requiring the claimant, when he returned from sickness absence in
September 2017, to return without sufficient managerial support.
5.2 Requiring the claimant, when he returned from sickness absence in
September 2017, to return to an under resourced and/or failing unit.
5.3 Requiring the claimant, when he returned from sickness absence in
September 2017, to return to an unmanageable workload.
6. The adjustments which would have been reasonable in respect of these
PCPs are:
6.1 Providing adequate managerial support.
6.2 Providing managerial cover for the claimant’s reduced hours and reducing
the claimant’s workload so that it was manageable within his reduced
hours.
7. The respondent breached a duty to make reasonable adjustments in
respect of the following PCP:
7.1 Moving the claimant to Victoria DO in January 2018.
8. The adjustment which would have been reasonable in respect of this PCP is;
8.1Proper planning of the move and consultation with the claimant about the
move.
9. The respondent breached a duty to make reasonable adjustments in
respect of the following PCP:
9.1 Not delaying the disciplinary hearing until the claimant was fit to attend a
hearing and/or properly represent himself in writing
10. The adjustment which would have been reasonable in respect of this PCP
is:
Case Number: 2206769/2018
3
10.1 Delaying the process to obtain occupational health advice and allow
the claimant’s condition to stabilise or improve.
11. The respondent breached a duty to make reasonable adjustments in
respect of the following PCP:
11.1 Not allowing the claimant’s wife to speak at his appeal hearing
(allowing representation only by a trade union representative or work
colleague)
12. The adjustment which would have been reasonable in respect of this PCP
is:
12.1 Allowing the claimant’s wife to speak at his appeal hearing.
13. The remaining claims are not upheld.
14. The hearing for remedy will take place on 23 and 24 April 2020, starting
at 10 am on each day. The parties are advised to see whether the matter
of remedy can be agreed in part or wholly. If not, the following directions
are given in substitution for the directions given at the end of the full
merits hearing:
14.1 By 4 pm on 20 March 2020, the claimant must send to the respondent
an updated schedule of loss and any documents which evidence
mitigation of loss, such as job applications, or documents which shows
sums earned;
14.2 By 4 pm on 3 April 2020, the respondent must send the claimant a
counter schedule, showing what aspects of the schedule of loss are
disputed by the respondent;
14.3 By 4 pm on 10 April 2020, the parties must exchange any further
witness statement on which they rely for the purposes of the remedies
hearing. The claimant’s statement should set out any actions he has
taken to mitigate his loss.
REASONS
Claims and issues
1. The issues were discussed with the parties at the outset and agreed as follows:
Time limits / limitation issues
To continue reading
Request your trial