Mr B Goodes v Numatic International Ltd: 1402447/2019
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 1402447/2019
Between
Mr B GoodesClaimantNumatic International LtdRespondent
Before
Employment Judge FowellIn person for claimantDate 13 August 2020
JUDGMENT
[1]The claim was submitted in time.[2]The claimant has a disability for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 and had that disability at all material times.
REASONS
[1]The decision on the above two preliminary issues was recorded in the Case Management Summary issued on 5 March 2020, since when written reasons have been requested by the respondent. Time Limits[2]The relevant test for complaints of unfair dismissal is set out in section 111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996: “an employment tribunal shall not consider a complaint under this section unless it is presented to the tribunal –(a) before the end of the period of three months beginning with the effective date of termination, or(b) within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable in a case where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of that period of three months.”[3]That three month period has since been extended by section 207B of the Act, to allow for the period spent in early conciliation.[4]It is not disputed that claim form was presented outside the normal time limit. Mr Goodes was dismissed on 14 December 2018 and began early conciliation on 2 March 2019. That was within the normal three month period from dismissal, which expired on 13 March. Early conciliation finished on 29 March 2018, 27 days later, and so the normal rules would allow a further period of one month from the issue of that ACAS certificate. Hence the primary time limit expired on 29 April 2019. So much is common ground. But the claim form was not in fact submitted until 3 June 2019, 35 days late. He relies on incorrect advice from ACAS and also on medical grounds.[5]The incorrect advice was in the form of an email from ACAS which is at page 1 of the bundle. It states: “You will have a minimum one calendar month to submit your claim from the day on which you received the certificate.” [Emphasis added][6]Clearly the author intended to say that he would have a maximum of one calendar month to do so. But it is important for me to attempt to put myself in Mr Goodes shoes and see what he would make of the document in the circumstances. There is nothing obvious on the face of the email to indicate that that advice was wrong. It is an odd statement in that it leaves the precise length of time unclear, and begs the question how long in fact did he have if there was a minimum of one month. Mr Goodes accepted that he ought to have asked them at some stage how much the maximum was and regretted not doing so. But ACAS is a reputable source of advice on such matters. In every case, including this one, they provide the certificate and a letter to the tribunal advising of the start and end of early conciliation, so that the Tribunal can work out whether a claim is late. It is to be expected that in the overwhelming majority of cases it will get this information correct. It is very unfortunate that in this one case the correct position was misstated, but that is the case and there is no reason why Mr Goodes would have had any occasion to doubt it. 2 of 6[7]The general principle is that if a claimant engages solicitors to act for him in presenting a claim, it will normally be presumed that it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and no extension will be granted. As Lord Denning MR put it in Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd 1974 ICR 53, CA: ‘If a man engages skilled advisers to act for him — and they mistake the time limit and present [the claim] too late — he is out. His remedy is against them.’ Similar cases have held that trade union representatives are also skilled advisers for these purposes, even advisers at the CAB, although that is not so clear cut. But there is a distinction where the advice comes either from tribunal staff or from ACAS, who are neutral between the parties.[8]In DHL Supply Chain Ltd v Fazackerley EAT 0019/18 (unreported, but referred to in the IDS Employment Law Handbook on Practice and Procedure, paragraph 5.81) the position was similar to this. The claimant was advised by ACAS to wait until his appeal had been heard before submitting the claim. He did not seek any further advice and the Employment Judge found that it was reasonable for him to approach the matter on the basis of this advice from ACAS. The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the decision.[9]Here the position is more clear cut. It is not a case of having taken general advice at an early stage; specific written advice was given that he had a minimum of one month, not a maximum. Following that advice inevitably meant that the normal time limit would be missed. Even if Mr Goode had submitted the claim form one month and one day after the end of early conciliation it would equally have been late. I find in those circumstances that it not reasonably practicable for Mr Goodes to submit his claim form on time.[10]The next question is whether it was submitted within such further period as may be considered reasonable, under section 111(2)(b) above. What is reasonable depends on all the circumstances, including Mr Goodes’ health.[11]His position is set out in the impact statement at page 59 of the bundle. He started new employment on 28 January 2019, which involved him being on his feet or on the go all day, aggravating his neuropathy and pain, and meaning that he had to take extra medication. He expanded on this in his oral evidence, explaining that his main medication was gabapentin and that when this wore off he would have a sharp pain in his head, for which he needed tramadol, a sedative. After a full day’s work, he needed three doses of this combined medication, rather than the usual two, leaving him physically drained and unable to concentrate[12]Another factor was that his wife was taken ill at the end of February 2019. That meant not only that he had some caring responsibilities for the next few weeks, but he was trying to make up the loss of her earnings by working overtime and also some Saturday mornings. The net effect meant that he only had Sundays to recuperate and had little or no energy even then. 3 of 6[13]It was put to him that the medical evidence in the bundle showed that his medication did not have any side effects on him, given that he had been taking them for a period of years, but that report was before his new employment and the increased dosage it required. I accept his evidence on that issue.[14]Mr Goodes also explained in his evidence that he was piecing his claim form together over successive weekends during this period. As already noted, the timelimit expired on 27 April and the claim submitted on 3 June 2018. That period also has to be seen against the advice from ACAS about a minimum period. As time went on, the question of what if any maximum period applied may well have become more pressing, but I accept that Mr Goodes was making reasonable efforts over those weeks to complete the claim form and set out the details of his claim, and the extra time needed does not seem to me so extraordinary as to put him on notice of the need to make further enquiries. A “minimum” of one month indicates that two months or even three might be usual. In those circumstances I find that the claim was presented within a reasonable further period and so was in time.[15]The next question is whether or not the complaint of disability discrimination was in time and that the test is less prescriptive. It is simply whether or not it is just and equitable to extend time. In circumstances where I have already found that it was not reasonably practicable for him to submit the claim form on time, and where it was submitted within a further reasonable period afterwards, the inevitable conclusion has to be that it would be just and equitable to extend time for that complaint also. Disability[16]With regard to the disability, the only issues in dispute were(a) whether the condition had an adverse effect on day-to-day activities and(b) whether that effect was substantial. It is accepted that Mr Goodes has a long-standing problem with his left knee. On this issue there was a good deal of medical evidence, including letters from treating specialists, GP records and Occupational Health reports.[17]In approaching that evidence I remind myself that by section 212(1) of the Equality Act 2010 “substantial” means “more than minor or trivial.” The Act also provides that, where an impairment is subject to treatment or correction, the impairment is to be treated as having a substantial adverse effect if, but for the treatment or correction, the impairment is likely to have that effect. In this context, ‘likely’ should be interpreted as meaning ‘could well happen’. The key point however is that it is necessary to disregard the effect of his medication.[18]That is of course very difficult to do in practice, since all of the examinations have been conducted on the basis of Mr Goodes regime of medication. High doses have been prescribed to Mr Goodes for many years. Summarising the documentary and oral evidence, the pain began in about 2012 or even earlier, and 4 of 6 led to a number of scans and examinations. No physical or mechanical cause has been found, so it has proved very difficult to treat. Over time it has had more impact on his life, so that until about 2015 he could still play golf. He also used to enjoy cycling and long walks. Now, he may go to the beach with his wife and may be able to walk a mile or even two, going slowly, but sometimes that is not manageable and half a mile is a more realistic limit. All this of course is dependent on regular medication.[19]It has resulted at various times to adjustments at work, including a move to a ‘continental’ shift pattern of four hour stretches or a phased return to work. By the end of his employment he could tolerate a 9 hour shift, but that was the upper limit.[20]There was a marked disparity in the evidence between the reports of his Occupational Health physician, Dr Groom, and his own GP. There were two reports from Dr Groom, a year apart, but Mr Goodes said that his examination was limited to moving the leg up and down to assess the knee joint. (That contrasted with perhaps half a day spent with his specialist and regular appointments with his GP.) The first report noted that there was no mechanical fault identified by the MRI scan, and expected it to resolve itself within a matter of weeks. It clearly did not do so, but the second report, on 23 July 2018, did not address or explain why this view had proved inaccurate, and again concluded that it would resolve itself over time. It said that Mr Goodes was in good shape, no adjustments were recommended, and it questioned the amount of medication prescribed.[21]In response, Mr Goodes obtained a letter from his own GP, Dr Moody, giving the opinion that he met the test of disability. It did say that the knee pain had improved by 90%, although Mr Goodes’ view was that that reflected the position on the day he saw the doctor, but that it still fluctuated considerably.[22]I prefer the view of Mr Goodes’ GP on this issue. Mr Groom’s opinion was that there is no underlying medical condition, but the respondent accepts that there is an impairment. Dr Groom’s reports therefore neither identifies the cause or explains why it has failed to resolve itself over this long period. But even if his view is correct, he stresses the extent of medication taken by Mr Goodes. I take the view that it would not have been prescribed inappropriately for so long, and is therefore necessary to control his pain and so to enable him to carry out normal day to day activities.[23]In my view, even without taking into account the effect of his medication, a fair reading of the medical evidence shows a consistent history of recurrent pain which, despite exercising, has had a debilitating effect throughout the material period, up to and including dismissal, affecting his ability to attend work, drive, and take part in recreational activities and socialising. In those circumstances the test of disability is met. 5 of 6
The hearing
[24]While there is more room around some assembly lines than others, all the tasks involve moving about. Of the five or so tasks on the assembly lines, one or two are carried out seated. With microbreaks, toilet breaks, going to make tea or coffee, two mid shift breaks and changing task every hour, there is the opportunity to move around at will. Some of the tasks can be carried out seated or standing. Some require walking two or three paces to pick something out of a stillage.[25]Mr Phillips is shift manager for about 50 people in the assembly lines. He decides who works where on any given shift, and he sorts out any problems that arise. He also deals with any underperformance. If there is underperformance in a shift he will ask the tester of assembled machines what happened, and the tester is usually honest about who is failing, because the house rule is that if he is unable to say then the underperformance is attributed to him. Mr Goodes has no complaint about Mr Phillips (other than that he did not take him off the blue shift on 27 June 2018 when Mr Goodes asked him at 07:00 or so).[26]Various people in the factory use a perching stool to take the weight off their feet. Mr Goodes did not ask for one, and OH reports did not recommend the use of one. While Mr Goodes said that the use of such a stool was impracticable (and he thought it might be unhelpful as he thought it could strain his back), the Tribunal does not accept that to be the case. It would not work for packing, which involves moving about to pick up a flat packed box, opening it and then filling it with the machine and accessories, but it would for the other assembly stages which not seated (some are) which are carried out on a bench. That some stages are seated is also relevant – 2 of 6, typically, are carried out seated, so reducing the amount of standing. Mr Goodes said that this might mean 4 x 1 hour standing followed by 2 x 1 hour sitting, and 4 hours standing would be prolonged and not advisable. Mr Goodes was not able to say that this ever occurred. In any event there is a break every 2½ hours. Mr Goodes was able to move about, as set out elsewhere in this decision, and he did have a period of nearly a year from June 2017 without knee related absence (but had other absences), which did not indicate that work was the issue (see below).[27]The chronology of the process is set out above. Mr Trump did not take any action on 05 June 2018, when Mr Goodes was on a first written warning, because the trigger for that review was a four day absence following a preplanned operation on his teeth carried out in hospital. It was unconnected with anything else and Mr Trump felt it was unfair to take any action in those circumstances.[28]The OH report of 23 July 2018 noted that Mr Goodes had no other back or knee related absence since the last report of 03 July 2017. (There were 33 days of absence for other reasons in that 12 month period: 4 days absence when he sustained an impact to the knee (10-13 October 2017), 25 days for a fractured finger (20 November 2017–21 December 2017), and 5 days for hospital treatment (21-25 May 2018).)[29]On 24 August 2018 Mr Trump held a review meeting after Mr Goodes returned from an absence caused by back and knee pains which lasted from 28 June 2018 to 17 August 2018, and reissued the first warning given on 27 February 2018. Mr Goodes attributed this absence to working on the blue auto line, which he said was too static. Numatic’s managers do not agree that this is so, but Mr Phillips and Mr Trump did not allocate him to that line again. For that reason that line could not have been a cause of the absence through knee pain from 31 October 2018 – 07 December 2018.[30]This means that in 2018 Mr Goodes benefitted from no action being taken on two occasions after the trigger points were reached, but still reached the stage where consideration of dismissal was triggered.[31]Mr Goodes lodged a grievance by emails of 06 July 2018 and 03 August 2018, addressed to Mr Cochrane, heard on 14 August 2018 by Graeme Milne. This was about being put on the blue line on 27 June 2018, which had, he said, been the cause of him going off sick half an hour into the next working day because of the pain he said resulted from that shift. His 3 page email stated that this “caused a severe failure in my back resulting in severe pain and virtually being incapacitated at home due to the pain”. He refers to chiropractic back treatment which has helped. It was not knee pain that caused him to be absent. His disability is left knee pain.[32]That grievance was not upheld by Mr Milne and Mr Goodes appealed. He told Stuart Cochrane, who chaired that hearing, that he had no problem with the blue line if he could move around. He said it was either a catastrophic accident or being static that caused his absence from 28 June 2018.[33]The OH reports have a consistent opinion, reflected in that of 10 December 2018. This stated that the doctor had seen Mr Goodes in July 2017 and July 2018. He reports that had then felt that “I did not feel at either time that there was anything significant going on in the knee, but he did have some mechanical back pain that appeared to be exacerbated by the symptoms relating to his knee, which I felt was otherwise in good shape.”[34]The report stated "As before, he has episodic low back pain as does 80% of the UK population, and he has occasional left knee pain. I am unable to understand the reasons for the left knee pain." He reported that a pain clinic specialist diagnosed it as neuropathic, but the OH doctor doubted this was correct because the medication, gabapentin, prescribed specifically for that cause, had so little effect. He believed that Mr Goodes was now fit for work and would be able to undertake all that was required of him on the various lines he was employed upon. He suggested that the most important thing was for Mr Goodes to remain mobile and not adopt any static postures either standing or sitting. He ought to move every 15 to 20 minutes. He was best off in a workplace where he was naturally moving to do the job. He saw no reason for long-term use of medications.[35]There is reference in the OH reports to good muscle tone around the knee consistent with Mr Goodes walking the 4-5 miles a day he said he did, and doing the exercises prescribed for him in August 2018 by the chiropractor.[36]Mr Goodes’ GP’s letter of 20 September 2018 stated that there was unlikely to be a long term cure for the pain. It stated that Mr Goodes said that standing in a stationary position for a prolonged period made it worse, and that he was better if allowed to sit at times, or mobilise.[37]Numatic paid for Mr Goodes to have initial chiroproactic treatment for his back, and then paid half the cost of further treatment. A chiropractic report of 09 August 2018 reported on treatment to his back, which had resulted in a significant improvement in range of movement and pain.[38]Mr Goodes was asked to attend an OH assessment in Yeovil on 05 July 2018. Three days before he said he could not drive there. Numatic said they would pay for a taxi. Mr Goodes said that he could not travel one hour there and one hour back, and declined to go. By letter of 04 July 2018 Mr Goodes’s sick pay was suspended. It was reinstated when he attended the OH doctor on 17 July 2018, the doctor coming to Chard to see him.
Conclusions
[39]Although Mr Goodes made much of having no individual risk assessment on joining the assembly line on 14 March 2016, the only provision recommended was that he should be able to sit at some point in his shift. The shifts were 8 hours so less than the 9 hour maximum the OH recommended. There was no reason to conduct a risk assessment.[40]Mr Goodes was not happy that there was no trial period, but as he had previously asked for a transfer to the assembly line, there is nothing in his objection that it should be tried out before being made permanent. As the shifts in the mould shop were 12 hours he could not stay there, and the Tribunal was told of no other possible option. In December 2018 the CSS section was suggested as a possibility, but it was not monitored and was being wound down with its work being put into ordinary assembly lines. It was not an option in December 2018, Mr Goodes had not asked for it before, and there was nothing in the return to work meetings or in the OH reports to suggest it might be beneficial.[41]Mr Goodes also thought it significant that having moved on 16 March 2016 he was then off work by reason of knee pain between 19 April 2016 and 23 May 2016, so that management should have known the move was not solving his problem of working with a bad knee.[42]However, he had previously asked to go to Vac B, had never voiced any objection to working in the assembly line, and he had then worked from 23 May 2016 to 28 June 2018 with no knee related absence (other than 10-13 October 2017 when he suffered an impact to it). There was no reason for management to think that there was any specifically knee related issue with him working there.[43]Mr Goodes was asked to work on the blue line on 27 June 2018. After an hour, at 07:00, Mr Goodes said to Mr Phillips that he thought it was too static for him, and that would cause him problems. Mr Phillips said that as far as he was concerned there was no reason why he could not work the blue line, as he was said to be fit to work anywhere: he would have to go to his doctor if he thought otherwise. Mr Goodes said that he would speak to his union representative, and went back to work. He came in the next day, and then was off work after ½ hour work, because of his knee pain, until 17 August 2018. He then asked not to work on the blue line again, and was never asked to do so. There was no formal decision not to do so, and this was just the line of least resistance for Mr Phillips and Mr Trump, and no issue for anyone else working in Vac B.[44]Mr Goodes felt that his GP letter, commissioned by Numatic, was not given weight by them. He said that it had a diagnosis which they ignored. In fact all the GP letter did was to set out his symptoms – “chronic bilateral patella femoral pain”: simply put, long term pain in both knees (patella being kneecap and femoral being to do with the femur bone). The GP letter clearly stated that the GP was not an occupational health specialist, and Numatic had a current OH report. There was no reason to have a review meeting after the GP letter. It made no other recommendations. That GP letter also opined that there was no likely solution to the problem, so there was every reason for Numatic to think that absences were going to continue.[45]There was a pattern of absence from both knee related pain, but also extensive absence from other unrelated things, such as back pain, flu, achilles’ tendon, stomach bug, and a tooth operation. The levels of absence from absences unrelated to his knee were substantial. Together with the knee related absences, the result was absence from work over a four year period of between one quarter and one third of the time. Put the way, it was over a year’s absence in four years. In that time there were 29 separate absences. Mr Goodes in cross examination, when asked to look at the list, accepted that it was “frightening”.[46]With that level of absence, and with the procedure being followed (and it was not said to be an unfair procedure), unless there is some other failure by Numatic, the dismissal cannot be considered unfair or disability discrimination. It was not reasonable to expect Numatic to cope with these absences, during which (save for a two week period when sick pay was suspended for not going to an OH assessment) Numatic paid Mr Goodes his full pay.[47]Mr Goodes’ case effectively depends on his assertion that there was a failure by Numatic to make reasonable adjustments which failure, he says, caused him to be away from work. This does not stand up to scrutiny. He asked only not to go on the blue line after, he says, one day’s work on that line on 27 June 2018 led him to go off work the next day after only ½ hour. He had not asked before. After this he was not put on the blue line again. His working pattern and conditions accorded with what the OH reports said, and his own GP said no different. He was able to move about. He could go to the toilet whenever he wished, or make tea or coffee. He had micro breaks (he made the point that he was proficient at his assembly work, and not trying to avoid any specific line by reason of workload, so he could do the work in the time allowed without difficulty). There was no penalty for underperformance, so he could walk up and down had he wished. Some of his work was seated, as the reports suggested should be the case. Being seated too much was also a problem for Mr Goodes so it was never in contemplation that a seated role should be found. There were breaks frequently, as people moved at the end of each hour and in mid shift breaks. There is no justifiable criticism of Numatic in anything they did in connection with Mr Goodes work. Nothing they did was not in accordance with (frequent) OH reports from a specialist doctor.[48]The Tribunal took careful note of Mr Goodes’ extensive questioning about the individual assembly lines, but even if it had weight, this was not something brought to Numatic’s attention. The Tribunal finds that even if this submission was correct there was no way that Numatic could have known. However for the reasons given, the Tribunal could not accept that any small differences in layout or work type were such that Mr Goodes could not mobilise during his shifts as recommended.[49]The OH reports indicate scepticism about whether Mr Goodes was genuine. Numatic now adopt that position. Neither he nor the GP could find any pathological reason for Mr Goodes’ pain. The OH doctor found some age related change to his patella and a bad back, like 80% of the population, and extended use of heavyweight medication not warranted by clinical examination. Notwithstanding that analysis, while Mr Goodes was employed Numatic never took the view that Mr Goodes is other than entirely genuine in his absences (the Tribunal thinks they were entirely correct in this view – just because medical professionals do not know why there is pain does not mean there is none). It is solely the number and length of his absences that were the reason for his dismissal, not any doubt about whether they were genuine.[50]It may be that Mr Goodes’ frame is simply not able to cope with the work in the Vac B line: if so it would not be disability discrimination or unfair dismissal if Mr Goodes were simply physically not capable of carrying out the work without suffering debilitating pain.[51]We find as a fact that Mr Goodes was able to mobilise as was suggested by OH and his GP, and that he was not required to stand or sit for prolonged periods, and was able to take a break or move about, stand or sit whenever he wished. We find as a fact that it was reasonable for Mr Phillips to require Mr Goodes to work on the blue line on 27 June 2018 (as it accorded with all recommendations Numatic had received), and note that after Mr Goodes went off after that he was never asked to work on the blue line again.[52]We turn to the individual heads of complaint. S15: Being removed from the company sick pay scheme: This was temporary by reason of non attendance at an OH appointment, restored when he attended. It was entirely reasonable to do so. There was no medical evidence to indicate that Mr Goodes could not go in a taxi paid for by Numatic. The policy on attendance management expects attendance at OH appointments. In any event the reason – as is abundantly clear from the grievance and the chiropractor’s report – was his back, not his knee. He could not drive because of his knee, but a taxi was offered. In submissions Mr Goodes accepted that is was his back that was the reason he said he could not go to Yeovil, but linked his back problems to his knee, by reason of weight shifting from his left leg to his right. The point is academic because it was a reasonable decision in any event, but the Tribunal considers this to stretch the law impermissibly. Being put on to performance monitoring following sickness absence: Mr Goodes hit the trigger points and exceeded then greatly. He offers no reason why it was not appropriate to manage that absence, particularly when the response of Numatic was to get OH reports. One of Mr Goodes’ assertions in his cross examination was that it was unfair to have so many return to work meetings, which is the direct opposite of this complaint. Having a written warning and final written warning imposed on him: The absence record speaks for itself, and no commentary is needed. If it be that Mr Goodes says Numatic caused the absence by an asserted failure to let him mobilise that has not been shown. The policy was not said to be (and is not) unfair, and in the year he was dismissed Mr Trump twice allowed trigger points to be exceeded, one with no action, the other only by restarting a first warning. The absence in 2018, on its own, when coupled with Mr Goodes’ GP saying that Mr Goodes’ situation was not going to improve, would have been enough for dismissal. In addition, the record of other absences was far from good. The warnings were amply justified. Being dismissed. With such an absence record dismissal is neither disability discrimination nor unfair. It was entirely proportionate in pursuit of the legitimate aim of effective management of the production line. S20/21: Was there a provision criterion or practice (“pcp”) allocating the Claimant work on any of the Respondent’s production lines: Mr Goodes was not put on the blue line after he requested not to be, so there was no such pcp after 28 June 2018. Before that there was, save for the manual line which was limited to about 14 people. the Respondent’s sickness management policy: This was a pcp, and as someone disabled with knee pain causing absence will self-evidently have more absence than someone not so disabled it causes substantial disadvantage. The issue is whether its implementation is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. It is not required of employers to tolerate sickness absence without limit, and the policy met the reasonableness test. The policy refers to “possible outcomes” and Mr Trump showed that there is discretion in implementation. The trigger is for consideration and action including OH reports – a positive step – not a routine progression to dismissal. the Respondent’s sick pay policy: This is a provision criterion or practice, but as Mr Goodes got full sick pay throughout all his absences (save two weeks) there was no disadvantage to him from it. Did the application of any such pcp put the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled in that: the Claimant could not stand in one position for any length of time the Claimant suffered pain if required to stand for any length of time the Claimant needed to be able to move regularly the Claimant needed to sit down from time to time the Claimant had taken sick leave in order to manage his condition. For the reasons given above, Mr Goodes has not established the premise of these contentions. He was not required to stand for any length of time. He has no problem walking. He was able to sit down from time to time. Where he stood for a task it was not lengthy and he could have used a perching stool. There was no disadvantage shown that arose from the sick pay policy. Did the Respondent take such steps as were reasonable to avoid the disadvantage? The Claimant identified the following as the adjustments he says it would have been reasonable for the Respondent to make: allocation to a production line where he could either move regularly or be seated provision of longer time for the Claimant to see the company doctor when he was off sick and unable to travel to Yeovil finding him alternative work rather than dismissing him. None of these are established. He could move regularly and be seated from time to time. The medical reports indicate that it would have been as bad for Mr Goodes to sit all the time as it would to stand all the time. The suspension of sick pay is dealt with above. There was no other work Mr Goodes could have done within Vac B, as it was all production work of a similar sort, and he was left off the blue line after 28 June 2018. He had left the mould shop as the shifts were too long. The paint shop involved static work. CSS was winding down. Mr Goodes did not suggest anywhere he could have worked.[53]Accordingly none of the disability discrimination claims succeed.[54]The Tribunal finds no fault in the procedure adopted (and none was raised), and so also finds that dismissal was fair in all these circumstances.[55]Accordingly all Mr Goodes’ claims are dismissed.