[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Mackay v. Aberdeenshire Council [2003] UKEAT 0008_03_2706 (27 June 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2003/0008_03_2706.html Cite as: [2003] UKEAT 8_3_2706, [2003] UKEAT 0008_03_2706

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

APPEARANCES

 

 

For the Appellant	Mr F H Lefevre, Solicitor Of- Quantum Claims Employment Division 70 Carden Place Queens Cross ABERDEEN AB10 1UP
For the Respondents	Mr P Sharp, Solicitor Of- Messrs Ledingham Chalmers Solicitors Johnstone House 52-54 Rose Street ABERDEEN AB10 1HA


 


LORD JOHNSTON:

1. This is an appeal taken by the employee against the part of the Employment Tribunal's decision, which was otherwise in his favour, relating to disability. The Tribunal found that he had been unfairly dismissed and at a subsequent remedies hearing made a substantial monetary order. However, at the original hearing, the Tribunal rejected the claim under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 ("The Act").
2. The matter can be disposed of at this stage very shortly.
3. In the original application it appears that the complaint in respect of disability was substantially related to the requirement on the part of the employer to make adjustments under section 6 of the Act. However, before us, Mr Lefevre eschewed that and concentrated on less favourable treatment under section 5. We say at once that we do not consider there is any substance in the suggestion that the employer should have been required to make adjustments, given that the only possible requirement related to the appellant's continence, and no one suggested that if he had been able to return to his employment at Woodhill, that could not have been met. The question therefore of adjustment and, indeed, his whole medical condition in that context, is to our mind irrelevant.
4. However, in relation to less favourable treatment in terms of section 5, the only base for that must be the decision by the employer to refuse to allow him to return to his previous employment at Woodhill. As the Tribunal state, on page 12 of their decision, that decision was taken in April 2000. Accordingly, any complaint in relation to that should have been brought within three months of that date and it was not. Accordingly we consider any issue under section 5 was beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and also this Tribunal.
5. Even if the matter were to be considered, given that the decision to dismiss has been categorised as unfair and quite unrelated to disability, the question of justification was adequately dealt with by the Tribunal.
6. In these circumstances we consider there is no substance in any of the grounds of appeal in this case and it will be dismissed.