For further information or advice in relation to dealing with employee dismissals, please contact our employment law specialists on 01332 226 155 or fill in the form below.
Dismissal based on medical incapacity can be a dangerous path for employers to tread. This case, Garcha-Singh -v- British Airways plc, highlights the complexities involved in such a dismissal, with specific focus on absence management policy and the postponement of termination dates.
30 August 2023
Case Study
In a recent case, Garcha-Singh -v- British Airways plc, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) shed light on the complexities of employee dismissals related to medical incapacity. The case concerned the postponement of an employee’s termination date on multiple occasions, leading to questions about the fairness of the dismissal.
Mr. Garcha-Singh, a cabin crew member, went on sick leave on 26th August 2016. British Airways plc (BA) decided to terminate his employment on 5th January 2018. However, instead of implementing the termination on the designated date, BA postponed it seven times, each time in an attempt to accommodate Mr Garcha-Singh’s health and support his return to work. In December 2018, BA decided not to postpone the termination date any further and the termination of Mr Garcha-Singh’s employment took effect.
Mr Garcha-Singh bought various claims, including a claim for unfair dismissal. The Tribunal found that he was not unfairly dismissed and the Claimant appealed against the Tribunal’s decision to the EAT.
BA’s Absence Management Policy (which was contractual) outlined the procedures to be followed in cases of employee medical incapacity. The Policy did not explicitly address postponing termination dates, but rather focused on setting a dismissal date and conducting review meetings before finalising the termination decision. Mr Garcha-Singh argued that BA had breached the contractual Policy by extending his employment on multiple occasions, which wasn’t provided for under the Policy.
The EAT noted that the extensions were to Mr Garcha-Singh’s advantage and pointed out that in December 2018, his main complaint was that the termination date had not been extended further. As such, it did not agree with his subsequent complaint that it had been unfair to extend the date on previous occasions or that that was a breach of his contract of employment.
Case Study
The employment tribunal acknowledged the unconventional nature of BA’s approach in setting a termination date and then rescheduling review meetings. However, it pointed out that BA had only given notice of termination to Mr Garcha-Singh a year after he had gone on sick leave. The tribunal concluded that this approach, though unusual, did not render the dismissal unfair, as it provided Mr Garcha-Singh with additional opportunities to return to work.
The EAT upheld the tribunal’s decision and stressed that the focus should not solely be on whether the postponement constituted a breach of contract. Rather, the tribunal must ascertain if the employer’s procedure falls within the range of reasonable responses. In this case, it was clear from the tribunal’s findings that the repeated extensions were intended to accommodate Mr Garcha-Singh’s medical conditions and facilitate his potential return to work.
Mr Garcha-Singh argued that the absence of a second appeal against the 21 December 2018 decision was a breach of contract, impacting the reasonableness of his dismissal. The EAT, however, rejected this claim. It clarified that according to the Absence Management Policy, the right to appeal was only applicable to the original decision taken on 31 August 2017. Since Mr Garcha-Singh had already been given a full and fair appeal against that decision, the failure to provide a second appeal did not breach the Policy.
The Court of Appeal has provided important guidance on the enforceability of training repayment clauses in employment contracts.
Read More
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has clarified when employers may be deemed to have knowledge of an employee's disability.
Read More
Download our probationary period resource pack to help prepare for the Employment Rights Act changes from January 2027.
Read More
An employer's failure to involve an employee in an investigation led to findings of disability discrimination and compensation.
Read More
The EAT highlights the limits of protected conversations and the risks employers face when discussions are handled incorrectly.
Read More
Employer ordered to pay over £264,000 after a reference referring to an ongoing dispute was found to amount to victimisation.
Read More
Download expert guidance on UK trade union reforms and prepare your organisation for Employment Rights Act changes.
Read More
EAT confirms endometriosis can be a disability and examines reasonable adjustments, dismissal risks and performance management issues for employers.
Read More
EAT confirms withdrawing a conditional job offer can breach contract with employers understanding when an offer is binding and notice applies.
Read More
EAT confirms leaving transferred staff on inferior terms can amount to indirect discrimination, even under TUPE.
Read More
EAT confirms dismissal must be based on the employer’s actual reason, not a substitute. Incorrect reasoning can make dismissal unfair.
Read More
EAT finds dismissal unfair in Milrine v DHL (2026). Key lessons for employers on appeal processes and reducing tribunal risk.
Read More