United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR P SNOWDON (of Counsel) Messrs Wilson Houlder & Co Solicitors 91 South Road Southall Middlesex UB1 1SH


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): The purpose of this hearing was to determine whether there is an arguable point of law in an appeal which Mr Alvares wishes to make against a decision of an Industrial Tribunal held at London (South) which rejected his complaint that he had been unlawfully discriminated against by his employers, the London Borough of Hounslow for a reason relating to his disability.

The appellant suffers from schizophrenia. He had applied for a job which involved working in school laboratories where there was obviously access to equipment which if misused could cause danger.

The Local Authority dismissed him very shortly after, having received an assessment from a doctor, who is not a specialist in dealing with this form of disability. The Industrial Tribunal were satisfied that Mr Alvares was suffering from a disability, but concluded that the employers had not acted unlawfully because what they did was justified.

The essential point that is raised on this appeal is whether in the circumstances the Industrial Tribunal should have accepted the employer's case that it was entitled to rely upon the expertise of a doctor who did not have any particular experience of dealing with mental health patients or those who suffer from this particular form of mental illness.

We were told, as was quite proper by Mr Snowdon, who has acted on a pro bono basis, which is a great tribute to the Bar for providing it, that Mr Alvares has obtained employment working with the Science Museum showing children around. He was seen by a Consultant Psychiatrist at the request of the Science Museum before they took him on. Mr Snowdon raises the question as to whether the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 does not require employers to go further than the Local Authority did in this case, having regard to their resources, and the fact that they could have taken more time to have assessed the effect of this illness on one of their employees.

Without giving any kind of encouragement to Mr Alvares to believe that by giving leave his appeal will or might succeed, we think that this is a proper case which should go for a full hearing because it will enable the Employment Appeal Tribunal to look at schizophrenia as an illness, and to examine with care the question as to the extent of an employer's responsibility when confronting an employee who suffers from such an illness. Nothing we have said should be taken to lead to a conclusion that we are mindless of the Local Authority's responsibility towards the children whom it is teaching, but it does seem to us that there is an issue which can usefully be examined both in relation to this particular case but, more importantly, on a wider basis for the further assistance of tribunals in due course. Schizophrenia is an illness which confronts many people and it is likely that we will be able to give some assistance to Industrial Tribunals in their future deliberations when faced with claims from those who suffer from it.

On that basis, we say that the appeal should go ahead for a full hearing. I would hope very much that the parties will provide us with such information as they can about the nature of the illness itself and if there is any readily understood publication which describes the illness, its progress and its prognosis, that would be of assistance to the deliberation of the Court.

This a Category A case and should be listed for one day.