J Parnell v Royal Mail Group Ltd
[2024] EAT 130
Raymond Cairns v The Royal Mail Group Limited
23 July 2024
[2024] EAT 129
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A disabled postman was unfairly fired. The first court didn't consider if his employer should have kept him on for a short time until a new job opened up. A higher court said the first court made a mistake and sent the case back to be tried again by different judges.
Key Facts
- •Raymond Cairns, a Royal Mail employee with osteoarthritis, was dismissed on ill-health grounds in February 2018 after being unable to perform outdoor duties.
- •Cairns was given supernumerary indoor duties but his appeal against dismissal in May 2018 was rejected.
- •The Employment Tribunal dismissed Cairns' claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination under sections 15 and 20 of the Equality Act 2010.
- •Cairns appealed, arguing that the Royal Mail should have kept him employed until an office merger in June 2018, enabling him to take an indoor role.
- •The Tribunal failed to address Cairns' argument that keeping him employed for a short period would have been a reasonable adjustment and that dismissal was not proportionate.
Legal Principles
Disability discrimination under sections 15 and 20 of the Equality Act 2010.
Equality Act 2010
Reasonable adjustments under section 20 Equality Act 2010; proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim under section 15 Equality Act 2010.
Equality Act 2010
A tribunal must make findings of fact about all essential aspects of a claimant's case (Meek compliant).
Meek
For the purposes of section 15 and 20 complaints, a challenge to dismissal includes a challenge to the decision on appeal.
O’Brien v Bolton St Catherine’s Academy [2017] EWCA Civ 145
The outcomes of overlapping unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims are not always the same.
City of York Council v Grosset [2018] EWCA Civ 1105; Knightley v Chelsea & Westminster Hospital Foundation Trust [2022] IRLR 567
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The Employment Tribunal failed to address essential aspects of the claimant's case regarding the impending office merger and the possibility of a reasonable adjustment to keep him employed until an indoor role became available. The Tribunal's decision was not Meek compliant.
Remitted to a differently constituted tribunal.
The EAT found fundamental deficiencies in the Tribunal's reasoning and concluded that a rehearing was necessary to address the claimant's arguments concerning reasonable adjustments and justification of dismissal at the appeal stage.