Duty to make reasonable adjustments was complied with despite disagreements with the provision of breaks on the return to work following a period of sick leave.

The claimant was employed by the respondent as a Senior Operator Grade 2 in Blending Operations. The claimant was disabled at the relevant time for the purposes of the DDA 1995 with the relevant condition being depression and anxiety.

The claimant had attended occupational health relating to his disability. In January 2023 the occupational health report outlined that there had been some confrontations in work and that the claimant did not have the additional mental resilience to cope with unnecessary work stress such as confrontations. The report did state that he was fit for work but that his resilience would be low. It also stated that work was beneficial to the claimant’s mental health as it gave him routine and purpose.

In June 2023 the claimant was seen in a distressed state. A colleague, without authorisation, advised the claimant to take a break. A colleague from Pastoral Care saw the claimant on a break in this distressed state and took him to his office. The claimant returned to his work after this. It was later that the colleague, Mr Ahmad, who advised the claimant to take a break was told that he should not have done this. This was from a line manager, Mr Cunningham, who would have handled the situation differently and he stated that he would not have left the claimant on his own in that state.  The claimant went on a period of sick leave from early June until August. The claimant did say that he was able to come back in mid-July, but he was advised that an occupational health appointment would be required. However, the claimant was then advised to extend his sick line on the basis that a welfare meeting could not take place as his manager would be off on leave at that time.

Occupational health advised that there be a phased return, welfare meetings, more frequent and longer breaks and increased support. Mr Cunningham held the initial return to work/welfare meeting. This outlined the phased return with half-days with no breaks initially and then moving to full day with one break. Following this call, the claimant raised concerns especially about the lack of additional breaks. In discussion with HR, it was stated that there would be allowance of breaks to get water for instance to help with his mental health.  The claimant contacted Action Mental Health who got in touch with an application form relating to the claimant’s disability support needs.

The claimant then sent an email complaining about the pastoral care available and also emailed HR making a formal complaint about Mr Cunningham and the return-to-work process. This was treated as a grievance and the panel found that there was no substance to the claimant’s allegation that he had been treated in a way which would amount to discrimination or harassment. The internal appeal was also refused. The claimant then issued proceedings at the Industrial Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that, on the basis of the claimant’s disability and the respondent’s notice of same, the duty to make reasonable adjustments did arise. The issue was whether the return to work and the provision of breaks led to a failure to make these reasonable adjustments. The Tribunal outlined that occasional ad hoc breaks would not have had a significant impact on the work whereas frequent breaks without cover in that place would have been difficult for the respondent to manage. The Tribunal accepted that such ad hoc breaks could have been put in place, but the Tribunal did not find that the respondent was in breach of its duty to make reasonable adjustments. The reassurance given that he could take short breaks, the completion of the Action Mental Health documentation and agreeing to put those measures in place were mitigating the claimant’s disadvantage. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the respondent did not fail in its duty, and the disability related discrimination claims were not well founded.

This case demonstrates how the Tribunal would consider whether the duty to make reasonable adjustments has been discharged. It is clearly not an absolutist duty with the Tribunal recognising that there could have been more done about ensuring ad hoc breaks were allowed but looking at the actions of the respondent in adjusting the shifts to allow for a break, looking at the type of work undertaken and the other steps taken by the respondent in relation to Action Mental Health documentation led to a finding that the disadvantage was being reasonably mitigated by the steps taken by the respondent.

NI Tribunal decisions are available on the OITFET website.