Employers are increasingly aware of the importance of supporting disabled employees and making fair, informed workplace decisions. However, problems can arise when assumptions are made about an employee’s condition, capability or future attendance without proper evidence to support those conclusions.
In this article, our employment team will highlight the recent Employment Tribunal case of Mr A Jones v Pilkington UK Limited whereby the actions of Mr Jones, who was disabled, to improve his mental health came under scrutiny by his employer and wrongly led to his dismissal. We will explore the facts of this case, including the lessons that can be learned going forwards.
Background
Mr Jones worked at Pilkington UK Limited as a team leader. He had worked at the company since 1983 when he joined as an apprentice after leaving school.
After developing a chronic and painful condition linked to the side-effects of earlier cancer treatment, he was informed by his doctors that he was unable to complete manual work, and he subsequently commenced sick leave.
During his sick leave, Mr Jones found his mental health suffering due to money worries and an increasing sense of isolation. Mr Jones found that being outside and in nature helped with the symptom s of his mental ill health and so he started spending time at his friend’s farm.
After a former colleague spotted Mr Jones wearing what looked like “work boots”, Pilkington engaged a surveillance company to gather information on Mr Jones. Mr Jones only learned about this surveillance work during a disciplinary hearing for gross misconduct in 2019.
At the disciplinary hearing, Pilkington presented Mr Jones with video footage showing him and his friend on an errand in which Mr Jones briefly handed his friend a small bag of potatoes and a hose. Pilkington treated this as evidence that Mr Jones had been working elsewhere and undertaking activity inconsistent with his condition. They did not, however, seek any medical evidence on this point. This led to Mr Jones being dismissed at the end of the disciplinary process.
Outcome at the Employment Tribunal
After a six-year legal battle, Mr Jones was successful at the Employment Tribunal and Pilkington recently agreed to pay him £329,000 in damages and lost earnings.
Mr Jones stated that he believed that “justice had been done” and Pilkington confirmed that, after conducting an in-depth review, they will ensure that the “same mistakes are not repeated”.
Lessons that can be learned
As stated by Mr Jones’ lawyer, Bernie Wentworth of Thompsons Solicitors, “This case highlights the consequences of employers making assumptions about disabled workers rather than properly understanding their condition and the medical evidence.”
It is important to note that, particularly in relation to absences and disabilities related to mental ill health, employees are entitled to undergo day to day activities and take annual leave. These activities could be considered to alleviate symptoms, as it did in the case of Mr Jones.
Therefore, a lesson that can be learned from this case is that employers should base decisions that they make about a disabled employee on tangible medical evidence rather than assumptions if they want to avoid possible disability discrimination claims.
The employment team at Newcastle-based Mincoffs Solicitors have extensive knowledge and experience in dealing with employment disputes, including those involving unfair dismissal or discrimination.
For expert advice on an employment law matter, email partner and head of employment Nick Smith on nsmith@mincoffs.co.uk or call the office on 0191 281 6151 to speak to a member of the team.
