Automated Summary
Key Facts
The Claimant, Ms. Coleen Phillips, began employment with American Express in 1979 and went on long-term sick leave in 1999 due to a back condition. She was enrolled in the Respondent's discretionary Permanent Incapacity Plan (PIP) in 2001 after occupational health assessments confirmed her permanent incapacity. Over 17 years, the Respondent conducted multiple medical reviews (2002, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2016) which concluded she could return to sedentary work with adjustments. Despite participating in a 5-week redeployment program (2016) and receiving weekly job vacancy listings, no suitable role was identified. The Respondent terminated her employment on 28 October 2016, offering 12 weeks' notice with continued PIP payments. The Claimant appealed, but the Tribunal upheld the dismissal, finding it procedurally fair and based on genuine capability concerns.
Issues
- The Tribunal assessed if the Respondent acted reasonably in dismissing the Claimant for capability, considering factors like the length of absence (17 years), the PIP criteria, redeployment efforts, and the Claimant's ongoing disputes about fitness for work. The Respondent's steps included medical reviews, redeployment support, and an appeal process.
- The Tribunal determined whether the Respondent's dismissal of the Claimant for capability (ill health) was fair under Section 98(2)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Respondent had to show a sufficient reason for dismissal and that the decision was reasonable in the circumstances.
Holdings
- The Tribunal determined that the employer could not reasonably be expected to wait longer for the Claimant's return. Factors included the Claimant's 17-year absence, the Respondent's extensive efforts to support return to work, and the Claimant's lack of indication she would soon be fit. The employer's actions met the statutory test for fairness under Section 98(4) of the ERA.
- The Tribunal found the dismissal procedurally fair, as the Respondent demonstrated a genuine belief in capability grounds, conducted reasonable investigations (including multiple occupational health assessments), and provided redeployment support. The Respondent's decision to terminate employment was reasonable given the Claimant's failure to identify suitable roles and her ongoing disputes about fitness for work.
- The Tribunal concluded that the Claimant's claim for unfair dismissal is unfounded and was dismissed. The dismissal was determined to be fair under Section 98(2)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, as the reason was capability (ill health) and the Respondent acted reasonably in dismissing for that reason.
Remedies
The Tribunal's judgment concluded that the Claimant's claim for unfair dismissal is unfounded and was therefore dismissed.
Legal Principles
The Tribunal determined the dismissal was fair under Section 98(2)(a) of the ERA for capability reasons. The Respondent demonstrated a genuine belief in the Claimant's incapability, reasonable grounds for this belief through occupational health assessments and redeployment efforts, and conducted a proper investigation. The Tribunal concluded the employer acted reasonably in terminating employment after failing to find suitable redeployment within the agreed period.
Precedent Name
- BS v Dundee City Council
- Spencer v Paragon Wall Papers Ltd
- DP Schenker Rail (UK) Ltd v Doolan
Cited Statute
Employment Rights Act 1996
Judge Name
Hallen
Passage Text
- 21 The Tribunal noted the sad and lengthy sickness absence of the Claimant from 8 March 1999 due to her back condition which continued until the dismissal date on 28 October 2016, a period of 17 years. ... The Tribunal's view was that it was reasonable for the Respondent to conclude that the Claimant no longer met the criteria for payment of the PIP benefit.
- 19.1 The minutes of the meetings on 12 August 2015, 14 April 2016 and 28 July 2016 (page 128, 168 and 208);19.2 The dismissal letter dated 5 August 2016 (page 260);19.3 The appeal outcome letter dated 6 October 2016 (page 248).
- 14 The Tribunal had to ascertain whether the reason for dismissal fell within Section 98(1) of the ERA and whether the Respondent had shown the dismissal was by reason of the Claimant's capability.19 In this case, the Tribunal finds that the Claimant's dismissal was by reason of her capability. The Tribunal came to this conclusion based upon evidence contained in the following documentation which was not disputed:-12 December 2017