Bugden vs The Royal Mail Group Limited

This case involved an appeal by Mr. Ian Bugden against The Royal Mail Group Limited concerning claims of disability discrimination and unfair dismissal.

TLDR:

• Mr. Bugden was dismissed due to ill-health absences.
• Claims of disability discrimination and unfair dismissal were initially dismissed by the Employment Tribunal.
• On appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the disability discrimination claim but allowed the unfair dismissal claim.
• The case was remitted to the Employment Tribunal for further consideration of the unfair dismissal claim.

The Claimant, Mr. Ian Bugden, was employed by The Royal Mail Group Limited from 15 August 1994 until 10 December 2019 as an operational postal grade worker. He was dismissed under the Respondent's attendance management policy due to frequent ill-health absences totaling 297 days over several years.

Mr. Bugden filed a claim with the Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, asserting that his dismissal was unjust and that the Respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments for his disabilities, which included anxiety, depression, visual migraines, musculoskeletal disorders, and bladder issues.

The Employment Tribunal dismissed Mr. Bugden's claims, finding that the Respondent had acted within the bounds of reasonableness and that the adjustments proposed by Mr. Bugden were not reasonable. The Tribunal also found that the dismissal was fair given the substantial periods of absence.

On appeal, Mr. Bugden contended that the Employment Tribunal should have considered redeployment as a reasonable adjustment and as an alternative to dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the grounds of disability discrimination but allowed the appeal on the grounds of unfair dismissal, remitting the case to the Employment Tribunal for further consideration.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the issue of redeployment should have been considered by the Employment Tribunal as it was a well-established principle in cases involving dismissal due to ill-health absence. The Tribunal's failure to address this issue constituted an error of law.

The case highlights the importance of considering all potential reasonable adjustments and alternatives to dismissal in cases of ill-health absence, particularly in large organizations with significant resources.

This decision provides valuable guidance for employment law practitioners on the application of the Equality Act 2010 and the Employment Rights Act 1996 in cases of disability discrimination and unfair dismissal.

Legal representatives: Mr. Barnaby Large (instructed by Laceys Solicitors Solicitors LLP) for the Appellant, Mr. Stephen Peacock (of Weightmans LLP) for the Respondent.

Judicial Panel: Mathew Gullick KC, Deputy Judge of the High Court.

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EAT 80