Background:

The Claimant is a serving police officer with the PSNI. Since 2017, he has been classified as disabled by the Respondent following intestinal surgery. The symptoms may lead to a lack of concentration or an unpredictable need for the lavatory. Occupational Health outlined adjustments such as not requiring the Claimant to be on front-line face-to-face duties such as effecting arrests, but to be working in an office (where lavatories are immediately available) and not to perform night-time duties.

The Claimant’s role moved onto a pilot scheme, the Telephone Resolution Unit. The Claimant became concerned following training that the role within the Unit may become one of a Call Handler. Some Call Handlers were serving officers whereas others were civilians – some of whom were members of the NIPSA Trade Union. Union action took place in July 2019 and contingency plans were drawn up including using the Unit staff to perform the role of Call Handler.

The Claimant’s case was that he was not sufficiently trained for the role of Call Handler so he could not perform the tasks in July 2019. He stated that this amounted to discrimination on the grounds of his disability by instructing him to take on the role of Call Handler. Line managers met with some of the Unit officers who had been refusing to answer 101 calls. The Claimant decided to record the meeting as he anticipated trouble. There was an investigation into the Claimant’s conduct regarding failing to obey a lawful order and the recording of the meeting.  It was found that there was no breach of discipline.

The Claimant alleged that the conduct of the Respondent was such that it discriminated against him on the grounds of his disability.

Outcome:

The Tribunal found that the Claimant failed to establish a connection between the action of the Respondent when it came to redeploying Unit staff. It was found that the new roles/duties could not be viewed as compromising or undermining the adjustments put in place. The Tribunal outlined that Occupational Health does not supersede the right of the Chief Constable to make operational decisions regarding deployment.  The Claimant had stated that there were issues with training about taking on the duties, yet the Claimant was given reassurances that the difficulties would be borne by the chain of command and not the Claimant directly. As a result, the Tribunal found that the Claimant, on the balance of probabilities, had failed to establish that the conduct of the Respondent was discriminatory on the ground of his disability.  As a result, the burden of proof did not shift to the Respondent and the Claimant’s case was dismissed.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

An interesting point from this decision relates to the points made by Occupational Health in relation to reasonable adjustments. In this case, it was made clear that those points outlined by Occupational Health do not supersede or replace the right of management to make operational decisions such as deployment.