D Gibbons v K Chinambu & Anor
[2023] EAT 50
J Parnell v Royal Mail Group Ltd
12 August 2024
[2024] EAT 130
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A postman sued his employer twice for disability discrimination and unfair dismissal. The first case found some discrimination; the second case dismissed all claims. The appeal court agreed with most of the second case's outcome but disagreed with some of its reasoning about whether the postman's dismissal was considered unfair or discriminatory.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Parnell (claimant) brought 31 employment tribunal (ET) claims against Royal Mail Group Ltd (respondent), divided into two periods and heard by two different ETs.
- •The first ET (Johnson ET) found Royal Mail failed to make reasonable adjustments by not removing a two-year warning and not reviewing a previous bad faith finding, but dismissed other claims.
- •The second ET (Shotter ET) considered later events and dismissed all claims, including unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims under sections 15, 20, and 21 of the Equality Act 2010.
- •Mr. Parnell appealed the Shotter ET decision.
- •The claimant's employment with Royal Mail spanned from June 1999 to June 2020, during which he suffered from anxiety and depression.
- •The two-year warning, issued in 2018 for allegedly making a bullying and harassment complaint in bad faith, was a central point of contention.
Legal Principles
Section 15 Equality Act 2010: Unfavorable treatment due to something arising in consequence of disability; objective justification defense.
Equality Act 2010
Sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010: Duty to make reasonable adjustments.
Equality Act 2010
Section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996: Unfair dismissal; potentially fair reason; reasonableness of dismissal.
Employment Rights Act 1996
Res judicata and issue estoppel: The effect of previous ET findings.
Case law (Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd; Arnold v NatWest Bank Plc)
EAT's jurisdiction: Appeals on questions of law; perversity challenges.
Case law (BT plc v Sheridan; Martin v Glynwed Distribution Ltd; Yeboah v Crofton)
Case management orders: The ET's power to amend lists of issues; overriding objective.
Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013; Case law (Parekh v Brent London Borough Council; Mervyn v BW Controls Ltd)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed in relation to the claims under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010 and unfair dismissal.
The Shotter ET permissibly considered the evidence and concluded that, at the time of dismissal, there was no efficacy in removing the expired two-year warning; the dismissal was a reasonable response to the irretrievable breakdown in the employment relationship.
Appeal allowed in relation to the claim under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010.
The Shotter ET failed to adequately explain its finding that the dismissal did not amount to unfavorable treatment, despite finding it was a detriment; the ET also erred in its approach to causation by not considering the possibility of a series of causal links between the claimant's disability and the breakdown of the employment relationship.