In the recent case of Riley v Direct Line Insurance Group plc, the Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed Mr Riley’s appeal against the decision of the employment tribunal to reject his unfair dismissal claim against his employer, on the basis that there was in fact no dismissal but rather a consensual termination to his employment.
The Appellant was disabled by reason of autism spectrum disorder, anxiety and depression and was employed by Direct Line Insurance Group as a Home’s Claims Advisor from March 2012. From 2014 until October 2017 Mr Riley was absent from work with anxiety and depression. For much of this period, he was paid 80% of his normal salary under a private health insurance scheme.
Following an assessment in August 2017, Mr Riley returned to work but was signed off by his GP again in May 2018 for ongoing anxiety and paranoia. In August 2018 Direct Line obtained a medical report which confirmed that it would be difficult to see Mr Riley sufficiently perform his role in the near or medium future.
Therefore, Direct Line called a meeting with Mr Riley to discuss the potential termination of his employment, with the insurers still paying him 80% of his normal salary despite no longer being employed by Direct Line. Mr Riley was happy with the proposal and his only query was whether payments would be made up to his retirement age. It was agreed that HR would investigate this and later confirmed that the payments would indeed be made until the state pension age.
Mr Riley went on to proactively pursue the option of this scheme and agreed to the termination of his employment because he wanted to take advantage of it as it was confirmed that payments would continue until state pension age.
Mr Riley then brought proceedings for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination against Direct Line.
In the first instance, the employment tribunal found that the termination was not a dismissal because it was consensual between the parties and therefore it could not amount to an unfair dismissal.
On appeal, the employment appeal tribunal also found that:
- that the ET had not failed to make reasonable adjustments in the way he was cross-examined and there had been no substantive unfairness in the hearing;
- that the ET had properly decided not to extend the time for the reasonable adjustments claims in view of his subsequent decision to agree to the termination of his employment rather than seeking to return to work.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
