An employment tribunal has ruled that a disabled former Pilkington UK employee should be awarded £329,000 in compensation after he was wrongfully terminated while on sick leave.
Alan Jones had worked for the organisation since 1983 and worked up to the role of team leader. He has been living with radiation-induced neuropathy from cancer treatment he received in the 1980s, which resulted in muscle wastage in his dominant shoulder and, combined with depression, rendered him disabled.
While Jones was on sick leave, Pilkington received reports that he had been seen wearing work boots and undertaking physical tasks. Video evidence captured him accompanying someone on a farming errand, momentarily lifting a small bag of potatoes and handing over a hosepipe.
Pilkington believed the footage was proof Jones was employed elsewhere while on sick leave and dismissed him for gross misconduct in October 2019. With the backing of his union, Unite, he pursued legal action through Thompsons Solicitors, alleging disability discrimination.
An employment tribunal took place in August 2021 and determined that Pilkington had acted on an unfounded belief directly connected to his disability. The panel concluded that sacking him on those grounds constituted discrimination arising from disability, and determined that Pilkington neglected to secure updated medical evidence prior to deciding to dismiss him.
Pilkington challenged the ruling at an employment appeal tribunal in April 2023, but the appeal was thrown out. The tribunal upheld the original verdict, confirming that employers who make assumptions about a disabled worker’s condition without adequate medical evidence can be found guilty of unlawful discrimination.
Following the unsuccessful appeal, Pilkington has now been ordered to pay Jones in excess of £329,000 in compensation.
Employment Judge Johnson said: “Jones had provided convincing evidence of the stigma that he felt arising from his dismissal by reason of alleged dishonesty regarding his fitness to work. Moreover, once the judgment had been delivered upholding Jones’ claim, Pilkington elected to appeal the decision relating to disability discrimination. While it did not appeal the overall decision, these actions prolonged the proceedings and left Jones in a position of some uncertainty where he felt that Pilkington did not accept the tribunal’s decision.”
Pilkington UK was contacted for comment prior to publication.
