The Employment Appeals Tribunal found that the decision to reduce compensation for disabled civil servants who were dismissed for absenteeism was not discriminatory.
McAllister, who suffered from anxiety and depression, was dismissed from his position at HMRC in 2018.
McAllister was denied work by his doctor for several years from 2011 to 2018, and even suffered an injury on the job.
In June 2018, he was informed that he could be removed from the organization if he could no longer support his absence.
In August 2018, he was on sick leave and told his line manager that his sick note had expired, but he was not fit to return to work and was not intending to return. There was no Although his manager told him the organization could no longer sustain his absence and referred his case to an independent decision maker to decide what steps to take next. , she decided to delay the start of this process.
At the September 2018 absentee meeting, petitioner failed to propose any adjustments to facilitate her return to work, other than a change of department. He was told that if he wanted to change jobs, he would have to apply for positions in other departments.
McAllister’s line manager tried to keep in touch with him while he was away sick, but did not always answer her calls.
McAllister was declared unfit for the job by his GP in October 2018 and fired by HMRC the following month. The organization said his absence meant other staff had to take over his work and that his absence affected productivity. said he had no business case to support his move to the team.
Having been dismissed on grounds of competence, McAllister was entitled to a payment under the Civil Service Compensation Scheme (CSCS), but because he had not always cooperated in efforts to help him return to work, this payment was 50%. % reduced. He was also late during his phased return and confused when he returned to work.
McAllister appealed the decision to reduce his compensation, and in March 2019, the Civil Service Appeals Board (CSAB) raised his compensation to 80% of full compensation, citing that his disability was not taken into account. decided.
McAllister filed a claim in employment court for unfair dismissal. His claim was dismissed as the court felt that his HMRC decision was appropriate as staff had to ensure that they could prove sufficient attendance.
He appealed the court’s decision to the Employment Appeals Tribunal and HMRC pursued a cross-appeal against the court’s finding that payments made under the CSCS amounted to unfavorable treatment.
EAT granted HMRC’s cross-appeal and agreed that McAllister’s dismissal was fair. It held that the court was wrong in holding that the appeals committee’s decision did not constitute an act of discrimination.
It held that the claimant’s receipt of the payment was not prejudicial. If anything, it was more favorable because people without disabilities were less likely to receive similar payouts.
The EAT ruling states: .
“Having (partially) disability-related cuts in the payout calculation didn’t change that, and ET made a mistake by artificially separating the calculation method from the prize itself. was not the case when plaintiffs’ rights to the award in question arose for reasons other than their disability status.”
Latest HR Jobs on Personnel Today
See more HR jobs
