<

!Google ads have two elements of code. This is the 'header' code. There will be another short tag of code that is placed whereever you want the ads to appear. These tags are generated in the Google DFP ad manager. Go to Ad Units = Tags. If you update the code, you need to replace both elements.> <! Prime Home Page Banner (usually shows to right of logo) It's managed in the Extra Theme Options section*> <! 728x90_1_home_hrreview - This can be turned off if needed - it shows at the top of the content, but under the header menu. It's managed in the Extra Theme Options section * > <! 728x90_2_home_hrreview - shows in the main homepage content section. Might be 1st or 2nd ad depending if the one above is turned off. Managed from the home page layout* > <! 728x90_3_home_hrreview - shows in the main homepage content section. Might be 2nd or 3rd ad depending if the one above is turned off. Managed from the home page layout* > <! Footer - 970x250_large_footerboard_hrreview. It's managed in the Extra Theme Options section* > <! MPU1 - It's managed in the Widgets-sidebar section* > <! MPU2 - It's managed in the Widgets-sidebar section* > <! MPU - It's managed in the Widgets-sidebar section3* > <! MPU4 - It's managed in the Widgets-sidebar section* > <! Sidebar_large_1 - It's managed in the Widgets-sidebar section* > <! Sidebar_large_2 - It's managed in the Widgets-sidebar section* > <! Sidebar_large_3 - It's managed in the Widgets-sidebar section* > <! Sidebar_large_4 - It's managed in the Widgets-sidebar section* > <! Sidebar_large_5 are not currently being used - It's managed in the Widgets-sidebar section* > <! Bombora simple version of script - not inlcuding Google Analytics code* >

Employee dismissed after ‘extensive’ sickness absences loses disability discrimination claim

-

Mr Pugh’s role involved handling a range of public queries at Wat Tyler House, both face-to-face and over the telephone. The council’s dismissal letter, cited in the tribunal’s decision, noted that Mr Pugh had been absent from work for 125 days out of a possible 260 working days in the 12 months prior to his dismissal, and 130 days in the year before that.

He appealed the dismissal, arguing that he would have been able to provide a reliable service if he had been permitted to work from home full-time. During the pandemic in 2020 and 2021, he had worked from home, and in 2023 the council agreed he could work from home on Mondays and Fridays, with office attendance required on the remaining days.

However, the council argued that its IT systems were not fully equipped to support customer service operations from home at the time – although later improvements had resolved those issues. Mr Pugh’s absences were primarily due to the Epstein Barr Virus, which began affecting him in 2020. His condition continued to cause sporadic absences into 2023, ultimately leading to his dismissal.

Operational needs and employee wellbeing

The tribunal acknowledged that Mr Pugh faced a significant disadvantage as his dismissal was due to sickness absence related to his disability. However, it concluded that the council had to maintain a critical public service, particularly for elderly, disabled, homeless and vulnerable clients.

The key question for the tribunal was whether Swindon Borough Council could have made reasonable adjustments that might have reduced Mr Pugh’s sickness absence and allowed him to continue in employment.

The judgment found that allowing Mr Pugh to work from home full-time would not have resolved the situation. It concluded that while remote working might have slightly improved his symptoms, the evidence suggested his sickness absence would still have remained high – noting that Mr Pugh had a near 30 percent absence rate even when working from home.

Dismissal “not disability discrimination”

In its findings, the tribunal expressed sympathy for Mr Pugh, acknowledging his ongoing health issues and the distress caused by his dismissal. However, it determined that Swindon Borough Council’s actions did not amount to disability discrimination.

The judgment concluded, “Our finding on the balance of probabilities is that the adjustment of working from home five days a week would not have alleviated the disadvantage. The claimant did not have a good sickness record even before contracting EBV. Any improvement would be from a very low base. Our findings mean that his treatment was not disability discrimination.”

Latest news

Turning Workforce Data into Real Insight: A practical session for HR leaders

HR teams are being asked to deliver greater impact with fewer resources. This practical session is designed to help you move beyond instinct and start using workforce data to make faster, smarter decisions that drive real business results.

Bethany Cann of Specsavers

A working day balancing early talent strategy, university partnerships and family life at the international opticians retailer.

Workplace silence leaving staff afraid to raise mistakes

Almost half of UK workers feel unable to raise concerns or mistakes at work, with new research warning that workplace silence is damaging productivity.

Managers’ biggest fears? ‘Confrontation and redundancies’

Survey of UK managers reveals fear of confrontation and redundancies, with many lacking training to handle difficult workplace situations.
- Advertisement -

Mike Bond: Redefining talent – and prioritising the creative mindset

Not too long ago, the most prized CVs boasted MBAs, consulting pedigrees and an impressive record of traditional experience. Now, things are different.

UK loses ground in global remote work rankings

Connectivity gaps across the UK risk weakening the country’s appeal to remote workers and internationally mobile talent.

Must read

Faye Holland: Employee Engagement – Rhetoric or reality?

There’s no denying that the phrase ‘employee engagement’ is...

Hannah Robbins: To what extent are your off the record discussions with employees protected?

Off the record discussions or protected conversations have played a significant role in employer-employee exit negotiations since they became inadmissible in unfair dismissal proceedings on the 29th July 2013, but not every conversation is automatically protected. To what extent can employers genuinely have an off the record discussion?
- Advertisement -

You might also likeRELATED
Recommended to you

Exit mobile version