DB Schenker Rail (UK) Ltd v Doolan UKEATS/0053/09/BI

Facts

The claimant had been a longstanding employee for the respondent and held the post of Operations Manager since 2004. This was a "safety critical" job with a wide range of management responsibilities. The claimant suffered from feelings of depression and stress connected to her job. After a few months, he returned, and two years later he was promoted to Production Manager, a far more important post than Operations Manager. After two months, he became unwell once again and said that his job was "getting on top of him." The claimant wanted to return to work five months later, and his doctor gave him the okay. The respondent asked a doctor to evaluate the claimant's capacity for performing the duties of a production manager.

According to the report, the claimant was prepared to resume work, and the doctor urged him to do so and reassess his condition six to eight weeks later. He issued a warning, saying it was difficult to determine whether the claimant would have stress-related illness. The respondent further asked the doctor to refer the claimant to an occupational psychologist, even though he didn't think it was necessary. The claimant was advised to carefully consider whether he should return to his existing position since, according to this assessment, it was doubtful that he would be able to function in a challenging environment without taking further time off due to stress. He said that he was unlikely to get sick again owing to stress at a meeting to discuss his return to work, and that the respondent may begin disciplinary measures right once with his full support. The respondent gave the second medical report priority when terminating the claimant notwithstanding their attempts to return to their previous position as Production Manager on capacity considerations.

The Tribunal agreed that the claimant was sacked by the respondent due to capacity. The Tribunal decided that the claimant was unfairly dismissed despite having doubts about the respondent's ability to prove the claimant was unable to perform the duties of Production Manager. The Tribunal did not allege that the respondent did not make a reasonable effort to ascertain the claimant's ability to resume working. Since the refusal of his offer to return to work with the aforementioned guarantee was beyond the bounds of reasonable responses to prefer one report to another and the claimant indicated he could now cope better, it was improper to dismiss the claimant.

Held

The EAT said that the Tribunal had to respond to the following 3 questions:

1.   If the responder really believed the justification given,

2.   if a reasonable examination led to the conclusion that it was the cause, and

3.   Whether they have solid justification for their conclusions.

In light of the first report, the EAT declared that the ET's finding that the respondent lacked the foundation for showing trust in the reason relating to the claimant's capability on which his dismissal was founded was unreasonable.