Mr I T Pattison v The Secretary of State for Justice: 2500213/2020
| Judgment Date | 09 August 2021 |
| Citation | 2500213/2020 |
| Published date | 20 August 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal |
Case Number: 2500213/2020
1
THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr I T Pattison
Respondent: The Secretary of State for Justice
Heard at: Newcastle Hearing Centre (by CVP) On: 25, 26, 27 and 28 May 2021
with deliberations on 6 and 7 July 2021
Before: Employment Judge Morris
Members: Mr J Adams
Mr R Dobson
Representation:
Claimant: Mr P Kerfoot of Counsel
Respondent: Mr M Brien of Counsel
RESERVED JUDGMENT
The unanimous judgment of the Employment Tribunal is as follows:
1. The claimant’s complaint that the respondent unlawfully discriminated against
him by treating him unfavourably because of something arising in consequence
of his disability contrary to sections 15 and 39 of the Equality Act 2010 is not
well-founded and is dismissed.
2. The claimant’s complaint that, contrary to section 21 of the Equality Act 2010, the
respondent failed to comply with its duty under section 20 of that Act to make
adjustments is not well-founded and is dismissed.
3. The claimant’s complaint that his dismissal by the respondent was unfair, being
contrary to Section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 with reference to
Section 98 of that Act, is not well-founded and is dismissed.
Case Number: 2500213/2020
2
REASONS
The hearing, representation and evidence
1. This was a remote hearing, which had not been objected to by the parties. It was
conducted by way of the Cloud Video Platform as it was not practicable to
convene a face-to-face hearing, no one had requested such a hearing and all the
issues could be dealt with by video conference.
2. The claimant was represented by Mr P Kerfoot, of Counsel, who called the
claimant to give evidence and Mr P Hannant, trade union representative, to give
evidence on his behalf. The respondent was represented by Mr M Brien, of
Counsel, who called three employees of the respondent to give evidence on his
behalf: namely, Ms K Gibson, Clinical Director of Westgate Unit (where the
claimant had worked) within HMP Frankland; Dr J Bailey, Head of Psychological
Services; Mr G O’Malley, Acting Deputy Director of Long-term High Security
Estate.
3. The evidence in chief of or on behalf of the parties was given by way of written
witness statements, which had been exchanged between them. The Tribunal
also had before it a bundle of agreed documents comprising in excess of 800
pages, which was added to during the hearing. The numbers shown in
parenthesis below refer to the page numbers or the first page number of a large
document in that bundle.
The claimant’s complaints
4. The claimant’s complaints were as follows:
4.1 His dismissal by the respondent was unfair contrary to sections 94 and 98
of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“the 1996 Act”).
4.2 His dismissal was discriminatory contrary to section 39(2)(c) of the
Equality Act 2010 (“the 2010 Act”) in that:
4.2.1 the respondent had treated him unfavourably because of something
arising in consequence of his disability as described in section 15 of
that Act, that unfavourable treatment being dismissing him; and
4.2.2 the respondent has failed, contrary to section 21 of the 2010 Act, to
comply with the duty to make adjustments imposed upon him by
section 20 of that Act.
The issues
5. The parties had produced a list of issues running to three pages, which being a
matter of record need not be set out fully in this part of these Reasons but are
summarised below.
6. First, however it is appropriate to note that the following concessions and
agreements are recorded in that list of issues:
Case Number: 2500213/2020
3
6.1 The claimant was dismissed.
6.2 The sole or principal reason for the dismissal was capability.
6.3 At all material times the claimant was, by reason of arterial fibrillation, a
disabled person within the meaning of section 6 of the 2010 Act; and the
respondent had knowledge of that disability.
6.4 The respondent dismissed the claimant because of something arising in
consequence of his disability, the something being his use of
anticoagulant medication.
7. The remaining issues that fell to be determined by the Tribunal can be
summarised as follows:
7.1 Did the respondent act reasonably in all the circumstances in treating
capability as a sufficient reason to dismiss the claimant, having regard to
equity and the substantial merits of the case?
7.2 Was the dismissal fair in the circumstances having regard to the size and
administrative resources of the respondent?
7.3 Was the claimant’s dismissal a proportionate means of achieving a
legitimate aim? In particular,
7.3.1 was the dismissal an appropriate and reasonably necessary way to
achieve the respondent’s aims;
7.3.2 could something less discriminatory have been done instead; and
7.3.3 how should the needs of the claimant and the respondent be
balanced?
7.4 Did the respondent operate a provision criterion or practice (“PCP”) that
the claimant had to attend work to carry out his post?
7.5 Did the PCP put a person with the claimant’s disability at a substantial
disadvantage compared to someone without the claimant’s disability?
7.6 Did the PCP put the claimant at that substantial disadvantage compared
to someone without his disability, in that the respondent did not allow him
to carry out a prisoner-facing role given the small but significant risk of a
cerebral bleed if he was to sustain a head injury?
7.7 Would the following adjustments have avoided the disadvantage to the
claimant:
7.7.1 permitting the claimant to wear a helmet or other form of protection;
7.7.2 enabling prisoner contact to take place behind a protective measure
such as a screen;
7.7.3 the claimant carrying out assessments via video link?
To continue reading
Request your trial