The claimant was engaged by the respondent as a Part-Time Reserve Police Officer, and he has carried out this role since 1st March 1990.  Alongside that he is also employed by the respondent as a full-time civilian staff member as a Mapper.   As the full-time role was largely a 9-5, Monday-Friday it meant the part-time duty was primarily confined to evenings and weekends. There had been long-standing issues that had led to reform of the part-time reserve positions within the PSNI.

On 22nd August 2017 the claimant emailed his line manager to inform him of a back injury and related medical issues. The claimant stated that this email should have been sufficient information so that the respondent knew he had a disability. The Tribunal found that whilst the email did outline that he had a physical ailment which substantially interfered with his day-to-day activities there was insufficient information about the longevity of the interference. This was especially so considering that the past 5-6 weeks was mentioned in the email rather than any longer interference.  The claimant outlined that he was willing to take on light duties but that he wanted to protect himself against any action if he was unable to take on 144 hours (the statutory minimum).

The claimant attended an occupational health appointment in October 2017 where it was determined that he could not wear a gun belt, nor could he arrest and restrain.  These were core aspects of the part-time reserve duty under the Harris Directive, and he could not be safely deployed into a public facing policing role. These ‘duty adjustments’ remained in place throughout the period of claim as well as at the time of hearing.

In May 2018, the claimant received an email asking why the claimant had fallen short of the statutory minimum hours (144). The claimant stated that DDA applied, and it was agreed that the hours fell outside of the control of the claimant. This was regarded by the claimant and the Tribunal as a reasonable adjustment.  The claimant did not receive another one of these letters in subsequent years. That being said, the claimant was aggrieved to have received the letter and the PSNI Reserve Documents does outline that before sending such a letter an enquiry should be undertaken to see if DDA applies.

As this matter continued, the claimant lodged a grievance in September 2018 stating that despite repeated requests he had not been given alternative duties as a part-time reserve and that it was a failure to make reasonable adjustments. The claimant, however, did not identify what these alternative duties may have been.  The claimant outlined that this was having an effect on his earnings potential. The issue for the Tribunal was whether the respondent had complied with its duty to make reasonable adjustments. The Harris Directive outlined particular duties that could be undertaken by part-time reserves and the strict adherence to its terms meant that the identification of alternative duties was non-existent. The respondent also outlined operational and strategic reasons as to why alternative duties could not be offered in this situation.   Accordingly, it was held that the respondent had complied with its statutory duty to make reasonable adjustments and the case was dismissed.

Practical Lessons

This case demonstrates the approach that has to be taken when it comes to reasonable adjustments. It was found that the respondents were aware of the disability and thus had to make reasonable adjustments. However, the Tribunal gave weight to the organisational aims and operational matters of the respondent. Whilst this may not apply to every respondent it does demonstrate that those matters can place limits on what adjustments would be regarded as reasonable. Therefore, as no alternative role could be outlined by the claimant or respondent it was held that the statutory duty had been complied with.

NI Tribunal decisions are available on the OITFET website:
http://www.employmenttribunalsni.co.uk/

You may find some useful guidance on making reasonable adjustments for disabled employees in this publication Guidance for Employers in Making Reasonable Adjustments.