Mr Kelly worked as a Postman for Royal Mail. He had a poor attendance record and had triggered Royal Mail's Attendance Policy on several occasions.
In 2017, he had two further periods of absences to undergo carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) surgeries, which triggered the final stage of the Attendance Policy. Mr Kelly was consequently dismissed and brought claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination arising from disability.
The Employment Tribunal (ET) dismissed both claims finding that:
Therefore, Royal Mail did all that it could reasonably be expected to find out whether Mr Kelly had a disability and its decision to attach weight to the OH reports was reasonable.
Mr Kelly appealed, arguing that Royal Mail had not properly considered the question of disability and had simply rubber-stamped the conclusions of the OH reports.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal. It held that when the occupational health reports consider the question of disability in detail, and in the absence of any other evidence, reliance on them will not be considered a rubber-stamping exercise.
This case is useful guidance to employers dealing with issues of absenteeism where advice from OH is requested.
The tribunal's decision confirms that although you should make an independent judgement as to whether an employee is disabled, in the absence of other evidence, you are entitled to rely on Occupational Health reports.