Romec Ltd v. Rudham

Factual and Procedural Background

The parties in this case are the Plaintiff and Company A. The case proceeded in the Manchester Employment Tribunal, where the Tribunal upheld the Plaintiff's claims of disability discrimination and unfair dismissal. Company A appeals against this judgment, challenging the Tribunal's approach to the duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA).

The Plaintiff began employment with a public postal service in 1990, later transferring to Company A, which provides in-house services to the postal group. The Plaintiff worked as a Security Systems Maintenance Engineer, a role involving extensive driving, working at heights, and lone working over a wide geographical area.

The Plaintiff experienced health issues related to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), which led to significant periods of sickness absence. Medical professionals recommended a phased rehabilitation programme to facilitate a return to work, which Company A initially accepted. Despite this, the Plaintiff's health deteriorated, and he was dismissed on grounds of capability due to continued absence.

The Plaintiff appealed the dismissal internally, citing procedural irregularities, failure to consider medical evidence, and lack of compliance with the DDA. The internal appeal was dismissed without reference to the possibility of extending the rehabilitation programme.

The Employment Tribunal found the Plaintiff was disabled within the meaning of the DDA and that Company A failed to make reasonable adjustments by not extending the rehabilitation programme. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled the dismissal amounted to unlawful disability discrimination and was unfair.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Tribunal correctly identified the basis for the duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
2. Whether Company A failed in its duty to make reasonable adjustments by not extending the Plaintiff's rehabilitation programme.
3. The implications of any failure to make reasonable adjustments on findings of disability discrimination and unfair dismissal.

Arguments of the Parties

Company A's Arguments

• The Tribunal failed to properly identify the basis for the duty to make reasonable adjustments.
• Even if such a duty existed, the Tribunal erred in law by finding a failure to comply with that duty in respect of extending the rehabilitation programme.
• There was no evidential basis for the finding that extending the rehabilitation programme was a reasonable adjustment, given medical evidence and the failure of the initial programme.
• The findings of disability discrimination and unfair dismissal should therefore be set aside.

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The appeal should be limited to the issue of whether the duty to make reasonable adjustments arose and whether it was breached.
• The Tribunal's findings on disability discrimination and unfair dismissal should stand.
• The failure to extend the rehabilitation programme constituted a breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court examined whether the Tribunal correctly identified the existence and scope of the duty to make reasonable adjustments under the DDA. It referenced established case law outlining the necessary inquiries, including identifying the relevant provision, criterion or practice (PCP), the comparator, and the substantial disadvantage suffered by the disabled person.

The Court agreed that the duty arose because the Plaintiff was unable to perform the full role of an engineer due to disability, unlike a non-disabled comparator. However, the Court found that the Tribunal erred in its assessment of whether extending the rehabilitation programme was a reasonable adjustment.

The Tribunal had focused on whether extending the programme would give the Plaintiff an opportunity to prove himself, rather than critically assessing whether such an extension would realistically enable a return to full duties, thereby removing the substantial disadvantage. This was a misapplication of the legal test under s4A and s18B of the DDA.

The Court emphasized that the reasonableness of the adjustment depends on whether it would effectively prevent the disadvantage. It noted that if there was no real prospect of success for an extended rehabilitation programme, it would not be reasonable to require Company A to provide it.

Given the lack of definitive findings on this point and the Tribunal's failure to engage in the correct analysis, the Court declined to substitute its own findings. Instead, it remitted the matter to the Employment Tribunal for further consideration consistent with the Court's guidance.

Holding and Implications

The Court ALLOWED THE APPEAL and remitted the case to the same Employment Tribunal for further findings regarding whether the failure to extend the rehabilitation programme constituted a failure to make a reasonable adjustment.

The Tribunal must:

• Determine if the failure to extend the rehabilitation programme was a breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments under the correct legal framework.
• If so, uphold the findings of disability discrimination and unfair dismissal.
• If not, overturn those findings but consider whether dismissal was unfair on other grounds.
• Adjust any remedy accordingly based on the further findings.

The decision directly affects the parties by requiring a reassessment of the reasonableness of the adjustment and its impact on the discrimination and unfair dismissal findings. No new precedent was established; rather, the case clarifies the application of existing legal principles regarding reasonable adjustments under the DDA.