In Kelly -v- Royal Mail Group Ltd UKEAT/0262/18/RN,
The Claimant worked as a postman. He had a poor attendance record generally and had triggered the Respondent’s Attendance Policy on several occasions due to repeated episodes of planned and unplanned absences. In 2017, the Claimant had two further periods of absence relating to surgery to treat Carpal Tunnel Syndrome in each of his hands. These absences triggered the policy again, the second period of absence triggering the final AR3 stage of the policy, which entitled the Respondent to review the whole of the employee’s attendance record. The Respondent decided that it had lost confidence in the Claimant’s ability to maintain a satisfactory attendance record and decided to dismiss him. The Employment Tribunal (ET) held that, although the decision to dismiss was harsh, it fell within the band of reasonable responses and the dismissal was fair. An allegation that the dismissal amounted to discrimination arising from disability was also dismissed on the basis that the Respondent did not know and could not reasonably be expected to know that the Claimant had a disability. The Claimant appealed on the grounds that it was perverse to conclude that it was fair to dismiss the Claimant for two periods of absence for corrective surgery for which the Claimant was essentially blameless, and for the Respondent to rely upon earlier absences. It was also said that the Tribunal erred in accepting that the Respondent did not have constructive knowledge of disability in circumstances where it did little more than “rubber stamp” the conclusions of Occupational Health in this regard.
The EAT Held. Dismissing the appeal that the Tribunal’s conclusion as to the fairness of the dismissal could not be said to be perverse. The policy expressly permitted earlier absences to be taken into account. Conduct that is in line with policy is unlikely to be unfair. The periods of absence for corrective surgery were, in each case, extended by other factors, and it was not outside the band of reasonable responses to take these absences into account. The policy applied to all absences, irrespective of fault or blame, and the Respondent was entitled to look at the overall pattern of absence in determining whether there was a likelihood of satisfactory attendance in the future.
As to disability discrimination, the Respondent had not simply rubber-stamped the OH reports, but had, on the face of it, given independent consideration to the question of disability. Moreover, the OH reports themselves contained more than a bare assertion that the Claimant was not disabled. In these circumstances, there was no error in the Tribunal’s conclusion as to the absence of constructive knowledge of disability.