Mr G Docherty v Royal Mail Group Ltd: 4114284/2019
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 04 February 2021 |
| Citation | 4114284/2019 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 31 March 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Disability Discrimination |
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
Case Number: 4114284/2019
5
Held in Glasgow on 9 December 2020
Employment Judge: D Hoey
Mr G Docherty Claimant
10
In Person
[Assisted by
Ms Ducie – Partner]
15
Royal Mail Group Ltd Respondent
Represented by:
Dr Gibson -
Solicitor
20
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
1. The claim of unfair dismissal was brought outwith the time period required by
section 101(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and it was reasonably
practicable for the claim to be have been lodged within the time limit. The
25
claim is dismissed.
2. The claims of disability discrimination were lodged outwith the statutory time
limit set out in section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 but were brought within
such a period that is just and equitable but the claimant failed to establish that
30
he was a disabled person in terms of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. The
disability claims are also dismissed.
3. Each of the claims is therefore dismissed.
35
REASONS
4114284/2019 Page 2
1. In a claim form presented on 10 December 2019 the claimant claimed unfair
dismissal and disability discrimination. Early conciliation had commenced on
28 November 2019 with the ACAS early conciliation certificate issued on 2
December 2019.
2. There had been a preliminary hearing at which the claimant was asked to
5
clarify the basis of his claims. In the Note following that hearing the claimant
was given extensive detail as to the legislation underpinning the claims and
relevant preliminary issues that had been raised by the respondent, including
the law as to time bar and disability status.
3. At a previous case management preliminary hearing (on 4 May 2020) the
10
Employment Judge had spent a considerable amount of time going over the
definition of disability and setting out what the claimant needed to prove by
way of evidence. The Note that was issued (at pages 3 to 6) set out the legal
definition and comment. The Note recorded that the preliminary issue with
regard to disability was likely to focus on the impact of the claimant’s
15
impairments given the respondent’s position and the claimant was ordered to
provide an impact statement showing clearly what the impact his impairments
had upon his day to day activities with particular focus on what the claimant
was not able to do, rather than focussing on what he could. The Note
emphasised that the claimant might wish to differentiate between the effects
20
when the impairment flares up and when it does not.
4. The claimant had not provided further details and at a further preliminary
hearing, held on 26 August 2020, the claimant was urged to read the terms of
the earlier Note carefully and ensure that he fully understands the legal
definition of disability and what he needs to establish by way of evidence. The
25
Employment Judge suggested that legal advice might assist the claimant
given the issues arising. The Employment Judge reiterated the questions
which the claimant must answer with regard to disability and set these out in
an order.
5. The parties had agreed at the hearing that an open preliminary hearing be
30
fixed to deal with 2 preliminary issues, namely time bar and disability status.
4114284/2019 Page 3
These had been discussed at previous case management preliminary
hearings and the rules with regard to these issues had been set out and
conveyed to the claimant.
6. In reply to the order from the preliminary hearing, the claimant stated he
claims he is a disabled person as he has a physical impairment which has a
5
substantial and long term effect on his ability to carry out day to day activities.
As such he received PIP payments for his illness.
7. In response to the question as to the impairments on which he relies, he
stated: “I suffer from reactive arthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Reactive
arthritis is an inflammatory arthritis. I was struck down with this illness and
10
hospitalised for several weeks while employed by the respondent. I was
informed that my age and strength is what kept me alive at that time. Reactive
and rheumatoid arthritis causes my joints to swell and be inflamed causing
pain and restriction of movement. The illness is a life long illness which I have
to take several medications daily. These medications result in me having to
15
get regular blood tests as they can cause long term damage.”
8. In response to being asked “please specify in what way this impairment has
a substantial and long term adverse effect upon your ability to carry out normal
day to activities” (and then giving examples of day to day activities), the
claimant answered simply by saying “mobility and continence”.
20
9. The order asked the claimant to provide detail as to any medical evidence in
support of the contention that he was a disabled person. The claimant
answered that he was seeking a report from his specialist which he would
submit to the Tribunal as he would a report from his GP.
10. The order also stated that “please provide copies of your GP medical records
25
showing when you were diagnosed as suffering from your condition and
demonstrating its effect upon you in the material period of your employment
with the respondent.” The claimant answered by saying “Dr Wright my GP
was who I visited and gave me advice and a work sick line at the time my
employer deemed me dishonest.”
30
To continue reading
Request your trial