Ms C Sweeney v Lloyds Bank plc: 4109681/2021
| Judgment Date | 15 October 2021 |
| Citation | 4109681/2021 |
| Date | 15 October 2021 |
| Published date | 27 October 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal |
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
Case Number: 4109681/2021
5
Hearing held in Glasgow on 14 – 17 September 2021
Deliberations 17-19 September 2021
Employment Judge D Hoey
10
Tribunal member J Burnett
Tribunal member P McColl
Ms C Sweeney Claimant
15
Represented by:
Miss Bowman
(Solicitor)
20
Lloyds Bank plc Respondent
Represented by:
Mr Maguire
(Counsel)
25
Instructed by
Messrs Evershed
Sutherland
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
30
The unanimous Judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that each of the claims is
dismissed.
REASONS
35
1. The claimant had raised claims for unfair dismissal and disability
discrimination by ET1 which was presented on 21 May 2021 with ACAS Early
Conciliation beginning on 23 March 2021 and ending on 4 May 2021.
Case No.: 4109681/2021 Page 2
2. The hearing was conducted in person with the claimant’s agent, the claimant
and the respondent’s agent attending the entire hearing, with witnesses
attending as necessary, all being able to contribute to the hearing fairly. One
witness attended the hearing remotely and there were no issues arising.
Case management
5
3. The parties had worked together to focus the issues in dispute and had
provided a statement of agreed facts and a list of issues. The latter required
to be refined as the case progressed.
4. We agreed a timetable for the hearing of evidence and the parties worked
10
together to assist the Tribunal in achieving the overriding objective, in dealing
with matters justly and fairly taking account of the issues, cost and
proportionality.
5. At the start of day 2 of the hearing, the claimant’s agent applied to amend the
15
basis of the claim for section 20 of the Equality Act 2010. The claimant wished
to add 2 new PCPs that had not previously been identified in the pleadings
(and had not been included in the finalised and agreed list of issues). The
respondent objected on the grounds that they had not been given fair notice
of the issues arising and there may be prejudice to the respondent as they
20
would have had insufficient time to consider the issues.
6. After retiring to consider the matters we gave oral reasons for deciding to
allow one of new PCPs (an attaining competence policy) but decline another
(in relation to PIP benefits). This was decided on the basis of the overriding
25
objective, taking account of the interests of justice and balancing the prejudice
to the parties.
7. With regard to the PIP issue, the claimant had been given sufficient time to
focus the issues in dispute and this had been done. There was no good
30
reason why the additional issue had not been identified in advance. This was
something that ought to have been known to the claimant at the time and
raised in advance and when the issues were finalised. It would have required
Case No.: 4109681/2021 Page 3
additional evidence from the respondent and was not something about which
fair notice was given (and could have been given). Balancing the interests of
both parties, we declined to allow that adjustment to the case.
8. We decided it was in the interests of justice to allow the adjustment with regard
5
to the attaining competence policy. This was in part due to the fact it was the
respondent which had lodged an additional production late in proceedings, at
the commencement of the first day which related to this policy. This was not
something the claimant could have foreseen and the amendment related to
the issues arising from that document. It was in the interests of justice to allow
10
that amendment. We ensured any unfairness to the respondent was resolved
by allowing the respondent to recall their first witness, Ms Muir, to speak to
the matter, and gave the respondent time to ensure full instructions were
received.
Issues to be determined
15
9. The issues to be determined are as follows (which is based on the agreed list
which was revised during submissions).
Unfavourable treatment claim (section 15, Equality Act 2010)
a. It was conceded the claimant was dismissed and that was
unfavourable treatment arising in consequence of her
20
disability. It was also conceded that the respondent knew of
the disability at the material times.
b. The issue in this case was whether dismissal was a
proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim of
25
appropriate management of employees who are unable to
attend work due to sickness absence and/or the impact
upon customers. It was conceded the aims were legitimate
but argued to be disproportionate.
Breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments (section 20,
30
Equality Act 2010)
To continue reading
Request your trial