The claimant had been made redundant from a post in 2015 but was redeployed and for the next couple of years took several long periods of sickness absence, partly because of potential conflict with managers. For a while she worked in a supernumerary role in the employee services team while seeking redeployment before she was dismissed in 2017. The ET rejected her claims for unfair dismissal.

In this judgment HHJ Tayler considers the PCP that underpinned the claims and, following the Court of Appeal decision in Griffiths, states that it is necessary to distinguish between the terms of an absence management policy and its application. In this case he considered that it was clear that the claimant did not merely assert that the PCP was the terms of a Management of Absence Policy, but contended it resulted from the application of the policy to her resulting in her dismissal because she was absent from work and was not fit to undertake her duties. However he goes on to conclude that the Tribunal did not err in their alternative analysis that the respondent had made all adjustments that were reasonable, so the appeal failed.