Raymond Cairns v The Royal Mail Group Limited

An employment tribunal must address and determine the essential elements of a claimant’s case when deciding both justification under section 15 and reasonable adjustments under section 20 of the Equality Act 2010. A conclusion that an employer need not maintain a supernumerary role indefinitely does not answer a distinct case that a short continuation of employment would enable transfer to an available adjusted role.

The fact that a dismissal is fair does not necessarily determine overlapping disability-discrimination claims. Those claims require the tribunal’s own objective evaluation. A failure to decide a central proposed adjustment and its bearing on justification is an error of law.

The claimant, a delivery worker disabled by osteoarthritis, could no longer undertake outdoor deliveries. He performed temporary supernumerary indoor work until his ill-health retirement dismissal in February 2018.

His internal appeal was dismissed in May 2018. He contended that an impending merger of delivery offices would shortly create an indoor role, and that it would have been reasonable to retain him until then and exempt him from occasional outdoor cover.

The employment tribunal dismissed claims under sections 15 and 20 of the Equality Act 2010, as well as an unfair-dismissal claim. The appeal concerned only the disability-discrimination claims. The central issue was whether the tribunal had determined the claimant’s case by reference to circumstances at the appeal stage.

1. Appeal allowed. The tribunal’s dismissal of the claims under sections 15 and 20 of the Equality Act 2010 was set aside to the limited extent identified. The matter was remitted to a differently constituted tribunal.

2. The challenge to the dismissal for the purposes of the Equality Act claims embraced the decision on the internal appeal. The tribunal was therefore required to assess the relevant circumstances when that appeal decision was made, not merely those prevailing at the original February dismissal.

3. The tribunal failed to engage with essential aspects of the claimant’s case. It did not determine whether, by May 2018, the merger was expected within weeks; whether an indoor role would then be available; whether a short retention in employment pending that role was reasonable; or whether exempting the claimant from ad hoc outdoor cover was a reasonable adjustment.

4. Its conclusions that a supernumerary role need not be continued indefinitely, that no alternative role was available at the time, and that calls-office work was unavailable did not answer that distinct case. The tribunal had to decide whether temporary retention until the merger, followed by deployment to an actual indoor role, was reasonable and whether dismissal at the appeal stage was a proportionate means of achieving the respondent’s legitimate aim.

5. Although appellate restraint applies to evaluative judgments on justification and reasonable adjustments, it does not prevent intervention where the tribunal has failed to assess a fundamental part of a party’s case. Nor did the unchallenged finding of fair dismissal cure the defect: unfair dismissal and the statutory disability-discrimination claims involve different, objectively assessed questions and may produce different outcomes.

6. The unchallenged unfair-dismissal decision and previously determined, unchallenged elements of the Equality Act claims stand. On remission, the tribunal must make such fresh findings as are necessary concerning the appeal-stage decision, then decide afresh whether the proposed adjustments ought reasonably to have been made and whether the decision then to reject the appeal was justified for section 15 purposes.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Allowed the claimant’s appeal against the dismissal of his claims under sections 15 and 20 of the Equality Act 2010, and remitted the identified issues to a differently constituted tribunal.

• Employment Tribunal: Dismissed the claimant’s unfair-dismissal, section 15 and section 20 claims. The unfair-dismissal decision was not appealed and remains in force.