Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Case lawEmployment lawDismissal

Case of the month: Fair dismissal for incapacity: McAdie v Royal Bank of Scotland

by Personnel Today 12 Sep 2007
by Personnel Today 12 Sep 2007

The Court of Appeal has confirmed that an employer can fairly dismiss an employee for incapacity even in circumstances where the employer’s conduct has caused – or contributed towards – the employee’s incapacity.

Transfer and related grievance

McAdie worked for the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) for many years, latterly as a customer service officer. When RBS moved her to a different branch, McAdie complained, and discussions about the move quickly became fraught, with McAdie complaining that her manager’s behaviour amounted to harassment.

McAdie was signed off sick with stress and subsequently brought a grievance about the transfer and her manager’s behaviour. The grievance was mishandled for various reasons, including delay and failure to deal with all of the complaints. RBS did not uphold the grievance.

McAdie remained off sick despite RBS’s attempts to get her to return to work. After more than a year’s absence, she was dismissed, following a series of meetings and a review of medical evidence, which identified “a severe adjustment disorder secondary to alleged workplace issues including harassment”, and confirmed that a return to work was very unlikely in the foreseeable future. McAdie brought unfair dismissal proceedings against RBS.

Responsibility

The tribunal found that McAdie’s transfer and grievance had been badly handled, and that her medical condition had been caused by RBS’s handling of the grievance. It said the dismissal was unfair as no reasonable employer would have handled things in the same way.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal and Court of Appeal disagreed with the tribunal on the unfair dismissal finding. Both appeal courts agreed that while a tribunal should not ignore the fact that an employer has contributed to an employee’s ill-health, the fact that the employer has done so cannot prevent the employer from ever effecting a fair dismissal. The courts suggested that in such cases it might be necessary for the employer to “go the extra mile” in finding alternative employment for the employee, or put up with a longer period of absence than might otherwise be reasonable.

Reasonableness

The question in an unfair dismissal claim is the reasonableness of the employer’s decision based on what it knew at the time, and for that purpose there should be no need to look at what caused the illness and who was responsible for it. Although RBS’s handling of the grievance was regrettable, there was no possibility of the employment continuing, and no alternative to dismissal.

This case provides some relief for employers in the context of unfair dismissal claims where the employer is wholly or partly responsible for the employee’s inability to work. Had the tribunal’s decision stood, an employer found responsible for contributing even partly to a stress condition would be precluded from ever dismissing the employee.

However, it is also important to remember that this decision only applies to unfair dismissals. An employer responsible for causing an employee’s stress is also at risk of claims for personal injury, discrimination and constructive dismissal, as well as claims under the health and safety legislation.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Key points

  • An employer contributing to an employee’s incapacity does not prevent the employer from ever fairly dismissing the employee.
  • The test in an unfair dismissal case is the reasonableness of the employer’s decision based on what it knew at the time, and for that purpose there should be no need to look at what caused the illness and who was responsible for it.
  • A finding of work-related stress could lead to other claims, including constructive dismissal, discrimination and personal injury.

What you should do

  • Deal with grievances promptly and effectively to avoid stress-related claims.
  • Where an employee alleges that their incapacity is work related, wait longer than normal before dismissing.
  • ‘Go the extra mile’ in finding alternative employment.
  • Introduce a stress policy so that managers and staff know how to deal with stress at work.

Personnel Today

Personnel Today articles are written by an expert team of award-winning journalists who have been covering HR and L&D for many years. Some of our content is attributed to "Personnel Today" for a number of reasons, including: when numerous authors are associated with writing or editing a piece; or when the author is unknown (particularly for older articles).

previous post
28 projects to benefit from the Union Modernisation Fund’s second round of payments
next post
Social networking sites: Networking or not working?

You may also like

Construction workers win compensation claim against defunct employer

9 May 2025

Zero-hours workers’ rights to be extended from beyond...

8 May 2025

Employment tribunal backlog up 23% in a year

7 May 2025

Ministers urged to outlaw misuse of NDAs

7 May 2025

‘Unacceptable to question integrity’ of Supreme Court judgment

2 May 2025

Employment Rights Bill must be tightened to protect...

1 May 2025

Lords criticise ‘opaque’, ‘on-the-hoof’ Employment Rights Bill

30 Apr 2025

Retail HRDs say Employment Rights Bill will have...

29 Apr 2025

Trans ex-judge to appeal Supreme Court biological sex...

29 Apr 2025

EHRC: Interim update on single-sex spaces draws criticism

28 Apr 2025

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • The Majority of Employees Have Their Eyes on Their Next Move PROMOTED | A staggering 65%...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Self-Leadership: The Key to Successful Organisations PROMOTED | Eletive is helping businesses...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+