Law
Under the Equality Act 2010 (the Act) an employer has a duty to make reasonable adjustments to help disabled job applicants, employees and former employees in certain circumstances. It is important to remember however that the statutory duty to make reasonable adjustments will only arise if the individual in question has a disability within the meaning of the Act.
The duty to make reasonable adjustments will therefore arise where the employer knows (or ought reasonably to know) that a person has a disability and the disabled person is placed at a substantial disadvantage compared to those who are not disabled by:
If the above applies, the employer must take such steps as it is reasonable to take to avoid the disadvantage. The EHRC Employment Statutory Code of Practice, which Employment Tribunals must take into account if it appears relevant, contains a non-exhaustive list of potential adjustments that employers might need to make to avoid any such disadvantage. One of the possible adjustments highlighted is "transferring the disabled person to fill an existing vacancy".
In the case of G4S Cash Solutions (UK) Ltd v Powell, EAT considered the extent to which an employer may be required to maintain a disabled employee's existing salary level when transferring them to a new role, as a reasonable adjustment.
Facts
Mr Powell worked for G4S Cash Solutions (UK) Ltd (G4S) as a single-line maintenance engineer. He suffered with back pain and in 2012 it was confirmed that he was no longer fit for jobs involving heavy lifting or work in confined spaces - it was accepted that in the circumstances he was disabled under the Act.
After a period of sickness absence Mr Powell began to work as a key runner, a new role created by G4S supporting a single-line maintenance engineers. When Mr Powell was moved into this role, he retained his existing salary as a single-line maintenance engineer. No formal agreements were entered into, but Mr Powell understood the change of role to be long-term.
In 2013, G4S was considering discontinuing the key runner role for organisational reasons, and Mr Powell was to look through a list of alternative vacancies. Subsequently, G4S decided to make the key runner role permanent, but at a lower rate of pay to reflect the fact that it did not require engineering skills. Mr Powell did not accept the proposed salary reduction and therefore was dismissed from his employment. Mr Powell issued a claim that there had been an agreed variation to his contract of employment when he started the key runner role that entitled him to his original salary on a permanent basis.
The EAT decision
EAT determined that G4S was required, as a reasonable adjustment under the Act, to employ Mr Powell as a key runner at his original rate of pay. This decision was appealed by G4S to EAT, who upheld the Employment Tribunal’s decision. EAT found that the Employment Tribunal was entitled to conclude that under the circumstances on this case G4S was required, as a reasonable adjustment, to continue employing Mr Powell in a more junior role involving less physical activity, preserving his existing rate of pay on an indefinite basis.
EAT highlighted however that whether or not pay protection would constitute a reasonable adjustment as part of a package of measures, needed to be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Our comment
The effect of this decision is that protecting a disabled employee's pay when they are re-deployed should always be considered, and should not be automatically discounted. The reasonableness of potential adjustments must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The question will always be whether it is reasonable for the employer in question to have to take that step. The financial considerations will always have to be weighed in the balance by the employer against the financial and other resources available to it. It is therefore not the case that pay protection need to be offered by all employers in all the circumstances.
For more advice on the duty to make reasonable adjustment, or any aspects of discrimination law, please contact Anna Dabek.
Dementia currently affects 1 in 14 people in the UK. Many people will either know someone with dementia, have had to support and care for someone with dementia or have been diagnosed themselves.
The 2022 Code replaces the NHF Code of Conduct 2012 (the 2012 Code) and sets out the baseline standards that the NHF expects of its member registered providers (RPs).
The High Court has dismissed a challenge by the Police Superintendents’ Association to the closure of legacy public sector pension schemes.
In my recent blog, I said that we would be issuing a series of ebriefings and blogs highlighting issues with the Procurement Bill. This is the first of these.
Contractors and delivery partners are facing a ‘perfect storm’ in many cases with a number of factors directly impacting upon the profitability of their work.
Worker status, like Piers Morgan, is one of those things that we think has gone away and then it pops up again!
We are seeing a steady trickle of decisions focused around the issue of flexible working requests or employer requirements for changes to working patterns (both pre and post the pandemic).
For those of us who have endured a choppy cross channel journey, the mention of P&O Ferries will invoke some nauseous memories.
Successive generations have witnessed seismic shifts in the workplace; post-war it was the return of the soldiers and the impact on working women who had to work in their place.
In this podcast, Puja Desai interviews Kimberley Foster and discusses her experience with counselling. This is a really helpful podcast for anyone who has thought about counselling.