7 June 2019 | Comment
Court rules that reliance on occupational health reports is not rubber stamping exercise
Kelly v Royal Mail Group Ltd
In this case, a claimant with a poor attendance record was dismissed after triggering the final stage of his employer's attendance policy when he was undergoing surgery for carpal tunnel syndrome.
The claimant brought a number of claims including discrimination arising from disability. The tribunal dismissed his claim on the basis that the employer did not have actual or constructive knowledge of his disability.
The claimant appealed to the EAT (Employment Appeal Tribunal). One of the grounds of his appeal was that the tribunal erred in finding that the employer had properly considered the question of disability when it had simply relied on the occupational health reports.
The EAT dismissed his appeal and held that where occupational health reports consider the question of disability in detail, and where there is an absence of any other evidence (including evidence from the employee and his representative), reliance on them will not be considered a rubber-stamping exercise.
The information on the Hugh James website is for general information only and reflects the position at the
date of publication. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be treated as such. If you would like
to ensure the commentary reflects current legislation, case law or best practice, please contact the blog author.