A model policy on how to conduct a meeting with an employee to discuss a phased return to work following long-term sickness absence, including changes to work, hours and location, light duties and reasonable adjustments for a disabled employee.
A model letter inviting an employee to attend a review meeting to discuss the progress of his or her phased return to work following long-term sickness absence.
A model letter setting out any revised arrangements following a review meeting to discuss the progress of an employee's phased return to work following long-term sickness absence.
A model form to record meeting to discuss a phased return to work following long-term sickness absence.
In Griffiths v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions EAT/0372/13, the EAT held that an employment tribunal was entitled to find that a disabled employee whose extended sickness absence triggered a warning under the employer's attendance policy did not suffer a substantial disadvantage compared with employees who were not disabled, and that accordingly the employer was under no duty to make reasonable adjustments in the application of its policy.
In General Dynamics Information Technology Ltd v Carranza  IRLR 43 EAT, the EAT held that, when dismissing a disabled employee for absence, the employer was not required either to disregard a final written warning for the purpose of complying with its duty to make reasonable adjustments, or to review the warning before placing reliance on it to effect dismissal.
In Thomson v Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust EAT/0218/14, the EAT upheld an employment tribunal's ruling that a conduct dismissal was unfair because the chair of the disciplinary panel had no training or experience in the role, and he impermissibly dismissed for what amounted to serious but not gross misconduct. The employee had, however, failed to establish that there was any failure to make reasonable adjustments.
David Malamatenios is a partner, Colin Makin, Sandra Martins and Krishna Santra are senior associates, and Hinal Raichura is a trainee at Colman Coyle Solicitors. They round up the latest rulings.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that a dismissal was procedurally unfair because the chair of the disciplinary panel had no experience or training in conducting disciplinary hearings. This led to the disciplinary panel misapplying the disciplinary procedure, and in these circumstances, the EAT found the dismissal was also substantively unfair.
In DLA Piper's latest case report, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that the duty to make reasonable adjustments was not triggered where the employee had given no indication that she would be fit to return to work.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to the duty to make reasonable adjustments in relation to disabled persons.