Ian Bugden v The Royal Mail Group Limited
[2024] EAT 80
B Garcha-Singh v British Airways Plc
26 July 2023
[2023] EAT 97
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A British Airways employee was fired for being sick for too long. Even though his firing date was changed several times, and he felt stressed by it, the court decided the airline acted fairly because the changes were meant to help him, and he already had a chance to appeal. The court didn't think the airline had done anything wrong.
Key Facts
- •Mr Garcha-Singh, a British Airways long-haul cabin crew member, was dismissed for incapability due to lengthy sickness absence.
- •His dismissal was effective on 21 December 2018, but the termination date was extended seven times.
- •British Airways' Absence Management Policy (AMP) was incorporated into his contract.
- •Mr Garcha-Singh appealed the dismissal in July 2018, and the appeal was heard in September 2018.
- •He claimed the multiple extensions to the termination date, and the lack of a further appeal in December 2018, were unfair.
Legal Principles
Unfair dismissal depends on whether the employer acted reasonably in treating the reason for dismissal as sufficient.
Employment Rights Act 1996, section 98(4)
Incapability due to ill health is a potentially fair reason for dismissal. The fairness depends on whether the employer waited reasonably long before dismissing and followed a fair procedure.
East Lindsey District Council v Daubney [1977] IRLR 181 EAT
The availability of an appeal and its scope is part of the procedure for dismissal and relevant to assessing overall fairness. A lack of appeal doesn't automatically render dismissal unfair.
Knightley v Chelsea & Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2022] EAT 63
A failure to adhere to a contractual right of appeal does not automatically make a dismissal unfair; the tribunal must consider whether the failure impeded the employee from demonstrating the dismissal reason was insufficient.
Westminster City Council v Cabaj [1996] IRLR 399
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The EAT found no breach of contract or unfair procedure. The multiple extensions to the termination date were for the claimant's benefit, and the initial appeal addressed the substantive dismissal decision. The EAT held that the ET's conclusion that the procedure was within the band of reasonable responses was supported by the evidence.