Tribunal awards PS188k for Director fired after cardiac arrest

After being fired due to his health problems, a senior recruiter was awarded nearly PS188,000.

Darron Blewitt was a director of Leeds-based Mach Recruitment . He won his case for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination , after his employer dismissed him “in a perfunctory manner”, according to the judge in a Cambridge tribunal.

Mr Blewitt suffered a cardiac arrest on 7 February 2020, which resulted in a hypoxic injury to the brain. In the weeks that followed, he was able to regain his mobility and speak again. However, his cognitive and memory skills were negatively affected. The tribunal also heard that he experienced anxiety and fatigue.

In October 2020 he returned to his job. By then, workplaces and work practices had been significantly altered as a consequence of the Coronavirus pandemic. According to Mr Blewitt, he had a poor memory and cognitive issues that made this a difficult transition.

Mr Blewitt’s dismissal was effective on 29 September 2022. He was not paid for his notice period.

Mr Blewitt was the Southern Regional Operations Director for Mach, and he described himself as “a workaholic”.

The tribunal heard that after his return, he was left to his own devices and expected to “get the job done”.

Katie Barrett, head of HR at the company, was accused by Blewitt of cancelling many meetings and ignoring emails sent to occupational health about his treatment.

The tribunal heard that Barrett eventually contacted Blewitt and told him he was “letting go” following a decision made to reduce the headcount of the senior team. The tribunal heard on 27 September 2022 that Ms Barrett contacted Mr Blewitt to inform him that he was going to be fired following a decision made by the senior team.

The judge found that this was due to a decline in business. “There was no indication that it was tentative proposal for which there would have been a consultation period,” he said.

The call ended when Mr Blewitt asked if this meant that Ms Barrett was announcing a redundancy. Ms Barrett told the Claimant she would contact him again. The two did not speak again until the 29th September 2022, when Ms Barrett called Mr Blewitt to inform him that he would be dismissed immediately due to ill health.

In his decision, tribunal judge Roger Tynan stated that Mr Blewitt had been dismissed because his health issues were time-consuming and difficult to handle and the company was unwilling to spend the time and effort necessary in this regard.

He said that the failure of the company to document its concerns, to record or to minute any meetings with Mr Blewitt, and to confirm his dismissal by writing “pointed out an organisation which was completely neglectful in this matter”.

He stated that Mr Blewitt was perceived as a nuisance to the company and that “stereotypical assumption were made about his ability to continue to perform his job and contribute.”

Mach Recruitment didn’t attend the tribunal or participate in the proceedings after its initial response was rejected.

Legal opinion

Liz Stevens of Birketts’ employment team, a professional support lawyer, said that the case demonstrated the damage that can be done by firms who fail to comply with the equality law.

She stated: “It’s clear from the findings of the tribunal that the employer failed to follow even basic procedural steps in the case.” It ignored occupational health advice and failed to record its concerns in writing. There was no formal capability or warning of potential dismissal. This was a particular criticism of the head of HR of the respondent.

The claimant’s condition met the definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010 and the employer had a duty to provide reasonable adjustments. This duty was not met by the employer. As the employment judge highlighted in his decision, the failure of an employer to make reasonable adjustments can be a factor in determining the fairness or otherwise of any dismissal based on health.

“The employer’s argument was further weakened due to its failure of compliance with tribunal orders. This resulted in its response being struck off. The employer also did not attend the hearings on the merits and remedy, so the tribunal was forced to accept the evidence of the claimant. It is important to engage with the tribunal, even when a claim appears to have a good chance of success. This will help minimise any potential losses.

Personnel Today has the latest HR job openings.

Browse Human Resources Jobs

Personnel Today has the latest HR job openings.

Browse Human Resources Jobs