Production operative dismissed after long-term sickness: capability process held fair
A production operative with 7 years' service was fairly dismissed on capability grounds after an extensive search for alternative roles failed, the tribunal ruled.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #long-term-sickness
- #ulnar-neuritis
- #asthma
- #restricted-worker-process
- #reasonable-adjustments
- #occupational-health
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a production operative on an assembly line.
- He suffered from ulnar neuritis and asthma, which caused physical restrictions.
- The respondent implemented a Restricted Worker Process to find alternative roles.
- The claimant trialled multiple roles but none were suitable due to his restrictions.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant on grounds of capability after an extensive process.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was fair and the respondent had not failed to make reasonable adjustments.
Timeline
-
Started as agency worker
Claimant began working for Jaguar Landrover as an agency worker.
-
Employment commenced
Claimant became a permanent production associate.
-
First occupational health report
Occupational health suggested temporary adjustments for claimant's right arm, but none were implemented.
-
Last day on assembly line
Claimant dropped a Bluetooth gun and stopped the line due to pain; he never returned to his original role.
-
Returned from furlough, RWP started
Claimant returned to work and was placed on ad hoc duties; Restricted Worker Process began.
-
Occupational health restrictions set
Occupational health confirmed restrictions: no getting in/out of vehicles, no twisting, limited walking, no gun work, no work above shoulder level.
-
Employment review meeting
Jason Wilding held an employment review; claimant raised grievance and possibility of using left hand.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed on grounds of capability; effective date of termination.
-
Final appeal hearing
Ian Holohan heard the second appeal; dismissed after reviewing two new roles suggested by union.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal was fair under the capability procedure and whether the employer failed to make reasonable adjustments for the claimant's disability.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that Jaguar Landrover Limited had acted reasonably in dismissing the claimant on capability grounds after a lengthy and thorough process.
Key reasons:
- The employer implemented a Restricted Worker Process, trialling the claimant in several roles.
- Despite extensive efforts, no suitable role could be found within the claimant's physical restrictions.
- The claimant's suggestion of using his left hand was not feasible given the nature of the work.
- The employer had not failed in its duty to make reasonable adjustments.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers who conduct a thorough search for alternative roles and document the process are more likely to defend capability dismissals.
- Long-term sickness dismissals require a fair procedure, including consultation and consideration of adjustments.
- Claimants should engage with the employer's process and provide medical evidence to support their case.
- The length of service does not automatically make a dismissal unfair if the employer has acted reasonably.
A thorough process that passed the test
This case shows that even a long-serving employee can be fairly dismissed on capability grounds if the employer follows a comprehensive process. The claimant, a production operative with 7 years' service, suffered from ulnar neuritis and asthma, which restricted his ability to work on the assembly line. Jaguar Landrover Limited implemented a Restricted Worker Process, trialling him in multiple roles over many months. Despite these efforts, no suitable role could be found within his physical restrictions.
The tribunal noted that the employer had acted reasonably by seeking occupational health advice, consulting with the claimant, and even involving the union in suggesting alternative roles. The claimant's own suggestion of using his left hand was considered but found impractical for the work required.
What the employer did right
The key to the employer's success was the extensive and documented process. They did not rush to dismiss; instead, they spent over a year trying to accommodate the claimant. The tribunal found that the dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses, given the lack of suitable alternative work.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that capability dismissals for long-term sickness can be fair if the employer can show a genuine and thorough effort to find alternative work. Employees in similar situations should engage with the process and provide clear medical evidence. However, if the employer fails to explore alternatives or ignores medical advice, the outcome could be different.
Similar cases
Security officer dismissed after back injury: tribunal finds unfair dismissal and disability discrimination
A security officer with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after a back injury. The tribunal also found that CIS Security Ltd failed to make reasonable adjustments and discriminated against him arising from his disability.
Dismissed after 10-month absence: employer's reasonable adjustments were enough
An employment tribunal has upheld the dismissal of an assistant branch manager with 28 years' service who was absent for 10 months with anxiety. The employer had offered multiple adjustments but the claimant insisted on a customer ban.
Teacher with dyslexia and hearing impairment dismissed after capability process: dismissal upheld
A tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a Welsh teacher with 17 years' service after a lengthy capability procedure, finding that the employer made reasonable adjustments and acted fairly.
Dismissed after 12 years due to long-term sickness: employer's redeployment efforts upheld
A Food Technology Technician with 12 years' service was fairly dismissed for capability after a long-term sickness absence, the tribunal ruled, finding the employer had properly considered redeployment and made reasonable adjustments.