Employment Appeal Tribunal Upholds Dismissal of Unfair Dismissal and Discrimination Claim
The EAT ruled that the original tribunal's decision not to postpone was reasonable, impacting claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination.
• public
Tribunal Upholds Decision to Proceed Without Representative
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has dismissed an appeal lodged by Ms S Alexander, upholding the original Employment Tribunal's (ET) decision to refuse a postponement of her final hearing. Ms Alexander's claims of unfair dismissal, direct disability discrimination, and discrimination arising from disability against St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust were consequently dismissed.
The central issue on appeal concerned the ET's refusal to postpone the hearing on 2 and 3 December 2024, due to the illness of Ms Alexander's trade union representative, Mr J Neckles. The ET had considered the application for postponement but ultimately concluded that it should not be granted. This decision was based on several factors, including the lateness of the application and the potential for further significant delay in an already long-standing case dating back to 2011. The ET also considered that it was well-equipped to support litigants in person and that the appellant could still receive a fair hearing, even without her expected representation.
In its judgment, the EAT acknowledged the appellant's arguments regarding the need for equality of arms and the potential prejudice faced by a litigant without representation. However, the Tribunal found that the ET had properly exercised its discretion, considering all relevant factors, including the overriding objective of dealing with cases fairly and justly. The EAT noted that while some tribunals might have granted the postponement, the ET's decision fell within the bounds of reasonable disagreement.
The EAT also addressed the appellant's claims concerning her disability. The Tribunal found that while Ms Alexander was disabled due to having a stoma and suffering from supraventricular tachycardia (SVT), the respondent's decision to dismiss her was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The absences, even those arising from her disability, combined with pre-existing attendance issues, meant the dismissal for capability was within the range of reasonable responses for an employer.
Ultimately, the EAT concluded that the ET did not err in its exercise of discretion when refusing the application for postponement. The appeal was therefore dismissed.
Read the entire judgment here: Ms S Alexander v St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust EAT 67
