BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Whitehead v Belfast Education & Library Board [2004] NIIT 2245_01 (19 May 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2004/2245_01.html Cite as: [2004] NIIT 2245_01, [2004] NIIT 2245_1 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
CASE REF: 2245/01
APPLICANT: Geoffrey Whitehead
RESPONDENT: Belfast Education & Library Board
The tribunal dismisses the applicant's claim for unfair dismissal.
Appearances:
The applicant appeared in person.
The respondent was represented by Mr Colmer, of Counsel, instructed by BELB Legal Services.
(a) The respondent employed the applicant from 1 August 1995 to 13 April 2001 as a Cleaning Services Manager.
(b) The applicant was off work ill from 10 April 2000. He attended the Occupational Health Physician on 25 July, 22 August and 26 September 2000 and was found to be unfit for work.
(c) The respondent had a procedure for Ill-Health Retirement.
(d) The respondent wrote to the applicant on 6 October 2000 indicating that an investigation would be held into misconduct allegations against him.
(e) The applicant returned to work on 9 October 2000. On the same day the respondent suspended the applicant on full pay pending determination of the misconduct allegations. He remained suspended until his dismissal.
(f) On 28 October 2000 the applicant suffered a heart attack.
(g) A disciplinary hearing arranged for 10 November 2000 was re-scheduled to January 2001 owing to the applicant's illness.
(h) The applicant did not attend a medical arranged for 29 January 2001.
(i) The respondent arranged a medical with Doctor Hamilton for 5 February 2001. The applicant was invited to bring to that appointment any medical report he wished to obtain.
(j) Doctor Hamilton reported on 7 February 2001 that " … the likelihood of Mr Whitehead being fit to resume before 2002 are remote and there is a significant likelihood he will never be fit to resume …"
(k) On 9 February 2001 the respondent wrote to the applicant informing him of the contents of Doctor Hamilton's report; that there was no suitable alternative employment; that the respondent proposed to terminate his employment on medical grounds; and that he had a right of appeal.
(l) The applicant appealed. A medical with Doctor Glasgow was scheduled for 23 February 2001. The applicant was made aware that unless his appeal was upheld his employment would be terminated. He was reminded that redundancy was still on offer to him until 22 February 2001.
(m) On 23 February 2001, Doctor Glasgow examined the applicant. The latter brought with him a note from his GP, stating that the applicant was fit to return to work from 26 February 2001.
(n) Doctor Glasgow reported to the respondent that the applicant, " … might attempt a further return to work, but I do not feel that he would he able to sustain regular and reliable attendance at work due to the chronic nature of his symptoms of pain, and the medication required for pain control."
(o) The respondent wrote to the applicant on 5 March 2001 stating that his appeal had not been upheld and as there was no suitable alternative employment it was terminating his employment on medical grounds. The effective date of termination was 13 April 2001.
(p) The respondent relies on incapability arising from ill-health as justifying the dismissal of the applicant. This is one of the statutory grounds that can render a dismissal fair.
(q) The respondent acted reasonably in treating the ill-health of the applicant as a sufficient reason for dismissing him.
(r) The respondent was entitled to prefer the medical reports from the independent Occupational Health Physicians to the statement of the applicant's GP, that he was fit to return to work on 26 February 2001.
(s) The coincidence of a disciplinary suspension from 9 October 2000 with ill-health suffered by the applicant before and after 9 October 2000 does not prevent the respondent from concluding that the applicant was incapable through ill-health to remain in the respondent's employment.
(t) Accordingly, the applicant's dismissal was not unfair and his claim for unfair dismissal is dismissed.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 13, 14, 17, 18 and 19 May 2004, Belfast
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:
