Rentokil Initial UK Ltd v Mr M Miller
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Auerbach |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Published date | 14 March 2024 |
Judgment approved by the court for a hand down Rentokil Initial UK Ltd v Miller
© EAT 2024 Page 1 [2024] EAT 37
Neutral Citation Number: [2024] EAT 37 Case No: EA-2021-001110-NLD
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
Date: 14 March 2024
Before :
HIS HONOUR JUDGE AUERBACH
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
RENTOKIL INITIAL UK LTD Appellant
- and -
MR M MILLER Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr E McFarlane, (Representative, Peninsula Business Services Limited) for the Appellant
Mr O Lawrence (instructed by Thompsons Solicitors LLP) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 16 January 2024
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
Judgment approved by the court for a hand down Rentokil Initial UK Ltd v Miller
© EAT 2024 Page 2 [2024] EAT 37
SUMMARY
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
Where a disability places an employee at the substantial disadvantage that they cannot continue in
their present job, and are at risk of imminent dismissal, there is no rule of law that it cannot be a
reasonable adjustment to give them a trial period in a new role. Nor is there any rule of law that it
must be certain, or likely to some particular degree, that the employee will be successful in a trial.
Any change which would or might avoid the substantial disadvantage caused by the PCP is in
principle capable of amounting to a relevant step. The only question for the tribunal is whether it was
reasonable for it to be taken. Unlike a process of consultation or medical investigation, neither of
which itself involves any change in the employee’s job, terms or working conditions, putting the
employee into a different role on a trial basis involves a substantive change. It may, in the given case,
be found to affect the risk of dismissal to a sufficient degree to make it a reasonable step. Obiter
observations in Environment Agency v Rowan [2008] ICR 218 not followed.
If the PCP and the substantial disadvantage are shown, and the knowledge requirements are met, and
the employee identifies a role that the tribunal finds could potentially have been considered
appropriate and suitable, then the burden may pass to the employer to show that it was not reasonable
to have put the employee into that role, or to have done so at least on a trial basis.
Whether the role was in principle suitable, whether the employee met essential requirements for it,
and the prospects of the employee successfully passing a trial period (judged as at the time when the
decision fell to be taken), are ordinarily relevant considerations. The employer’s assessment of these
matters, and the evidence produced to the tribunal by the employer to support its case, should be
carefully considered and weighed by the tribunal. But the employer’s assessment is not necessarily
to be treated as decisive, as the question is an objective one for the appreciation of the tribunal.
To continue reading
Request your trial