Mr A Ali v GH London Ground Handling Services Ltd: 3300194/2021
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 3300194/2021
Between
Mr A AliClaimantGH London Ground Handling Services LtdRespondent
Before
Employment Judge S MatthewsMr Antwi-Boasiko (instructed by Solicitor) for claimantMr McCabe (instructed by Solicitor) for respondentDate 10 February 2022
JUDGMENT
COVID-19 Statement on behalf of Sir Keith Lindblom, Senior President of Tribunals This has been a remote hearing on the papers which has been consented to by the parties. The judgment of the Tribunal is that:[1]The complaint of unfair dismissal is well-founded.[2]The claimant’s application to amend to include a claim for 12 weeks’ notice pay is dismissed upon withdrawal.[3]The claimant’s application to amend to include a further claim of breach of contract is refused.[4]The Tribunal will decide the remedy for unfair dismissal at a further hearing on 5 May 2022 at 10am. The hearing is listed for 2 hours and will be conducted by video link.[5]The parties will be sent a separate case management order setting out required steps for preparing for the remedy hearing.
REASONS
[1]By a claim presented on 7 January 2021 the claimant has brought a claim for unfair dismissal in relation to the termination of his employment at the respondent company.[2]The issues were agreed at the start of the hearing as follows:2.1 Was the reason or principal reason for the dismissal a potentially fair reason? The respondent says the reason was Capability (long term absence) or some other substantial reason (SOSR) such as to justify the dismissal of an employee holding the position which the employee held.2.2 If SOSR:2.2.1 What was the reason?2.2.2 Did the respondent act reasonably in all the circumstances in treating that as a sufficient reason to dismiss the claimant?2.3 If Capability:2.3.1 Did the respondent genuinely believe the claimant was no longer capable of performing his duties?2.3.2 Did the respondent adequately consult the claimant?2.3.3 Did the respondent carry out a reasonable investigation, including finding out about the up-to-date medical position?2.3.4 Could the respondent reasonably be expected to wait longer before dismissing the claimant?2.4 Was the dismissal within the range of reasonable responses?2.5 If the reason was not a potentially fair reason, what was the likelihood that the claimant would have been dismissed in any event? On what date would it have taken place?2.6 Should there be any deduction from the basic award for conduct prior to dismissal? Regarding the compensatory award, did the claimant cause or contribute to his dismissal and if so, to what extent?2.7 If the dismissal was unfair, what is the appropriate remedy? It was noted that the documents did not give sufficient clarity on gross and net pay to enable the tribunal to calculate an award. Procedure, documents and evidence heard[3]The tribunal heard evidence from the Claimant and from Ernesto Carignani on behalf of the Respondent. Their statements were accepted as evidence in chief.[4]The claimant asked for 3 changes to be made to his statement at the start of his evidence:4.1 Paragraph 6, third and fourth line, should read ‘that my doctor did not see me in person’4.2 Paragraph 13, should read ‘nearly 20’ instead of ‘about 20’4.3 Paragraph 14, it is accepted the respondent did pay notice pay in January.[5]There was a tribunal bundle of approximately 226 pages of which I read only the pages to which I was directed. References in brackets below are to numbers in the bundle. A skeleton argument on liability from the respondent was submitted on the morning of hearing.[6]At the start of the hearing I had to deal with a preliminary application. The claimant’s solicitor had emailed the tribunal on 23 November 2021 seeking application to amend the claim form as follows:6.1 an application to amend to include a claim for 12 weeks’ notice pay, and6.2 an application to include a further claim of breach of contract,6.3 The claimant’s solicitor was told the claim would be dealt with today.[7]The application was accompanied by a document (46-47) setting out the amount being claimed. The notice pay application was withdrawn at the start of the hearing as the claimant conceded that he had been paid for notice. It therefore fell to me to decide the further claim of breach of contract.[8]The claimant’s solicitor submitted that it was within the terms and conditions of the claimant’s employment that he would be entitled to a contractual termination payment calculated by allowing 2 weeks’ pay for each year of employment. The documents on which he relied are in the bundle (80-83, 86- 87). These expressly refer to redundancy pay. The claimant’s solicitor asserted that the termination pay would be triggered by any termination other than one for gross misconduct. The claimant lodged the claim himself and did not appreciate that he needed to tick the box to make this claim. The claimant’s solicitor was instructed in July 2021 and first became aware of this claim when the claimant forwarded the emails to him in November 2021. The respondent’s solicitor responded to the application by email dated 24 November 2021 (48) arguing that the amendment was out of time and that the respondent would have to call at least one other witness to contest the new claim. He submitted that it was not connected to the same set of facts or circumstances and it would require the respondent to locate further documents relating back to the period before the Tupe transfer. This would affect the one day time estimate.[9]I decided to reject the application to amend to include a claim for breach of contract in respect of the emails (80-83, 86-87). I took into account the Presidential guidance and Selkent Bus Company Limited v Moore [1996] ICR 836. There is a fine distinction between raising a claim which is linked to an existing claim and raising a new claim for the first time. The facts originally described in the claim form do not support this new claim which appears to be for breach of contract and/or redundancy. In deciding whether to allow the amendment, I took into account all the circumstances and balanced the injustice and hardship of allowing the amendment against the injustice and hardship of refusing it. There would be a risk of hardship to the respondent by increased costs if the claimant was allowed to proceed with this new claim and the time estimate for the hearing would have to be increased. The respondent was not ready and able to defend the claim at this hearing as the claimant’s solicitor had not set out clearly what the grounds of the claim were. I considered that the balance of injustice and hardship lay in favour of refusing the amendment.
The Facts
[10]I made the following findings of fact. Where there was a conflict of evidence I resolved it, on the balance of probabilities, to arrive at the findings of fact set out here.[11]The respondent is a company operating at airports including Heathrow providing ground handling services to passengers such as ramp, cargo, ticketing and lounge services. At the relevant time it employed approximately 500 employees of which 250 were employed at Heathrow.[12]The claimant was employed as a Customer Service agent at Heathrow airport. His duties included check in and gate work. He started his employment on 14 May 2001 with GH Heathrow Limited and there was a ‘Tupe’ transfer to the Respondent company on 1 December 2014. He had 19 years continuous service.[13]On 6 July 2020 the claimant commenced sickness absence. He had no significant or long-term sickness absence previously in his employment. His ‘Fitness to Work’ notes submitted covered the period from 6 July 2020 until the termination of employment. They initially referred to a swollen ankle and from 21 October 2020 they referred in addition to a ‘skin problem’.[14]The claimant’s employment contract (53-57) sets out the relevant sick pay scheme. As the claimant had more than 6 years of service he was entitled to full pay for 52 weeks (57). The claimant kept the respondent fully informed of his sickness by forwarding Fitness to Work notes with covering emails throughout his period of sickness (apart from 3 days in August 2020 for which he was deducted pay).[15]The respondent did not make contact with the claimant about his sickness absence until he had been absent for approximately 3.5 months. On 23 October 2020 the HR Manager Giovanna Locci (GL) contacted him by email to invite him to a meeting to review sickness absence.[16]The sickness absence management procedure (73-75) comprises a First, Second and Final meeting. The employee is entitled to be accompanied to the meetings. The employee is also entitled to be provided with action points in writing after the first meeting and the outcome in writing after the second and final meeting. After the final meeting there is a right of appeal. In the event the claimant was informed of his right to be accompanied at each meeting but he was not provided with actions points or outcomes in writing except at the third/final meeting.[17]On 29 October 2020 the first meeting was held by video link. GL and an HR assistant, Veronkia Bancheva (VK), were in attendance. The claimant had been offered the chance to be accompanied by a work colleague or trade union official and Vik Khaira (VK) attended by phone. At the meeting GL expressed concern that the claimant had not been to see a doctor in person and VK pointed out how difficult it was at that time which was during the Covid pandemic. The claimant agreed to attend an appointment with the employer’s Occupational Health Adviser (OHA). He was sent the handwritten minutes of the meeting (131) but no other action plan or outcome letter.[18]On 12 November 2020 the claimant attended a meeting with the OHA in person. He had to get someone to drive him to the appointment as he felt too unwell to drive. The resulting Occupational Health (OH) report (139-141) stated that his skin changes were compatible with psoriasis. The OHA advised ‘Sedentary duties only’ in the ‘Fit for Work’ box and stated ‘Yes’ at the ‘Specialist referral indicated’ box. He opined that the claimant ‘remains unfit to undertake his full duties’ but ‘fit, in my opinion and at management discretion, to undertake sedentary duties such as check in work for up to 4 hours at a time, such that he is able to get up and stretch the leg when needed.’ He recommended that the claimant discuss blood tests, an x-ray and referral to a dermatologist with his GP. He stated that the likelihood of him ‘rendering reliable service in the future is dependent on the successful management of his symptoms’.[19]On Friday 17 November 2020 the claimant received another letter by email inviting him to a ‘teams’ meeting to discuss ‘your sickness and your Occupational Health’. This meeting took place on Friday 20 November 2020. The claimant was accompanied by his union representative Kevin Hall (KH). GL was present together with a note taker. The minutes of the meeting (148- 150) show that the OH report was discussed and GL noted that it confirmed psoriasis on his knees and fingers and stated that he was fit for work for a reduced period of 4 hours. The claimant explained that he had cracked skin and ‘can’t touch anything’. He had seen his doctor yesterday by videocall who confirmed he was unfit for work. It was agreed that the claimant would send the report to his doctor so he could ‘reply’ to it. GL asked if a time frame could be established and if it could be done by Friday but KH replied that would depend on when the doctor replied and in the event no time frame was agreed. There was no discussion about how the claimant’s duties could be adjusted and no reference to any risk of dismissal. The claimant was sent the minutes by email on the day of the meeting but he was not sent a letter or action plan.[20]On the following Monday 23 November 2020 the claimant gave the report to the surgery with a covering letter (151) saying that the report was enclosed for ‘you to have a look’. The claimant asked the GP to confirm by letter or email that he was still unfit for work. The claimant informed the respondent that he had handed the report to the surgery in an email sent on the morning of 23 November 2020 (152). On 25 November 2020 the claimant called the surgery to chase a response and updated the respondent by email that he had done this (154).[21]The next day on 26 November 2020 in an email timed at 11.41 am GL said the respondent had ‘made the decision to prefer the information contained in the [OH] report’ (155). The claimant was told he must come into work for 4 hour shifts as from tomorrow. If he failed to return he would be treated as absent without leave and disciplinary action may be considered. A roster was forwarded shortly afterwards indicating his first shift was to start at 4.30 am on 27 November 2020.[22]At this point it is appropriate to consider what was going through the mind of the respondent in finding the reason for dismissal. I cross refer to the meeting on 20 November above where GL suggested waiting until Friday 27 November for the report and I question why the claimant was not allowed more time, especially as he had kept the respondent updated of progress. I conclude that GL had made the decision to prefer the OH report regardless of what the GP may say. GL became convinced that the claimant was fit for work, at least for 4 hours at a time. On the basis of the OH report GA was prepared to ignore further medical developments or evidence. She ignored the parts of the OH report which referred to further investigations and even when the claimant told her in an email later that day (157) that his GP had arranged for an x-ray and to see a consultant (as recommended in the OH report) GL’s mind remained closed to any possibility other than that the claimant was fit for work for 4 hours a day. This was the mindset which ran through the decision making up to and including the appeal.[23]On 27 November 2020 the claimant was sent a letter headed ‘3rd Sickness Review Meeting’ (166) to discuss the OH report and fitness for work. It warned that one possible outcome of this meeting was that he could be dismissed. The meeting took place by video on 1 December 2020. The claimant was accompanied by KH.GL was in attendance and there was a note taker. The minutes are in the bundle (173-174). GL commenced by stating that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the claimant’s sickness and that she had decided to ‘go ahead with’ the OH report and the claimant must come back to work with reduced hours ‘as suggested’ in the report. She stated that the reason was that the OHA had seen the claimant in person whereas the GP had not and the claimant had not produced any evidence that his medical condition had changed for the worse. She warned him that if he did not come back to work a possible dismissal would follow.[24]On 2 December 2020 the respondent sent a letter of dismissal. It was headed ‘Outcome of Sickness Meeting: Dismissal’. It stated as the outcome; ‘I believe that we have reached a stalemate situation and there is no foreseeable date when you will be fit to return to work, given that you are refusing to accept the advice of the Occupational Health Adviser’. I find that, notwithstanding the reference to fitness to return to work, by qualifying it with the comment about failure to accept the advice of the OHA, GL was dismissing on the grounds of the stalemate rather than because she believed the claimant was incapable of returning to work.[25]On 8 December 2020 Ernesto Carignani (EC), Station Manager, heard the claimant’s appeal against the decision to dismiss by video link. KH accompanied the claimant and there was a note taker. EC considered the purpose of the appeal was to look at all the evidence and the opportunity to bring more evidence that was not available at the time of the dismissal. The claimant had sent a letter from his GP to EC and GL by email on 4 December 2020. The letter was dated 3 December 2020 (179). It refers to the claimant being in constant pain and unable to mobilise. It states that he ‘cannot grip anything with his hands’ and is ‘unable to travel and undertake any duties at his current place of work ‘. He advises ‘total rest at home’.[26]Despite being in receipt of the letter EC decided not to take it into account at the appeal. His reason for this was that it was not signed or dated and he did not find it ‘reliable’. If it had been signed and dated he said he would have taken time to address it. Potentially he conceded it could have changed the outcome of the appeal. However he found it significant that it did not say the condition had got worse. He had questioned the claimant about how his condition had got worse and the claimant did not put forward an explanation. He was sceptical that the claimant had not been able to see a doctor in person if ‘he was so tremendously in pain’. He also noted that the cream suggested by the doctor to treat the condition was an ‘over the counter ‘medication and he felt this indicated the condition could not be ‘so serious’. He was unaware of the claimant’s previous sickness record and did not think that this or the sick pay period of 52 weeks in his contract was relevant. He explained in evidence that ‘for us he was fit for work’. He considered the claimant had no plan to return to work and was taking no action to remedy his condition. He did not consider conduct was the issue; it was that he did not want to return to work. In his view this was not ‘disobedience’ but a disagreement over the reports.[27]On 15 December 2020 the respondent sent a letter upholding the dismissal (191). Although the letter referred to an appeal against the outcome of a sickness meeting on 8 December 2020 EC did not conclude that the claimant was unfit for work but stated that he had chosen to favour the content of the OH report which provided ‘that you were fit to work, albeit at reduced hours’. He repeated that he did not believe the GP letter was reliable as it was not on headed paper or signed, he did not accept that the claimant’s condition had got worse since the OH report and he did not see the point of getting another OH report.[28]I find that the principal reason for dismissal was the belief held by GL and subsequently by EC that a stalemate had been reached. I have found that they did not believe capability was the reason as they considered the claimant capable of returning to work on reduced hours. I discuss this further under my conclusions below.[29]On 27 January 2021 the claimant had a telephone consultation with a Consultant. The report (198-199) confirmed the diagnosis of psoriasis. The claimant was advised about the importance of breaking the itch/scratch cycle and began to improve. Following the consultation he quickly got the psoriasis under control using clean foil and a specialist cream. He started applying for jobs in January 2021 prior to the consultation with the Consultant as he was advised to by Talking Therapies to deal with the stress of being unemployed, even though he did not feel well enough to work. However he felt capable of returning to work shortly after seeing the Consultant. Law[30]Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provides:(1) In determining for the purposes of this Part whether the dismissal of an employee is fair or unfair, it is for the employer to show – (a) The reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal; and (b) That it is either a reason falling within subsection (2) or some other substantial reason of a kind such as to justify the dismissal of an employee holding the position which the employee held.(2) A reason falls within this subsection if it – (a) Relates to the capability or qualifications of the employee for performing work of the kind which he was employed by the employer to do; …..(3) In subsection (2)(a) – (a) ‘Capability’, in relation to an employee, means his capability assessed by reference to skill, aptitude, health or any other physical or mental quality; and[31]The employer has to show the reason for dismissal and if there is more than one reason the employer must prove the principal reason. As set out in Abernethy v Mott, Hay & Anderson [1974] ICR 323: “A reason for the dismissal of an employee is a set of facts known to the employer, or it may be of beliefs held by him, which cause him to dismiss the employee.”[32]Where the employer asserts that the reason for the dismissal was SOSR the employer must be clear about what it is dismissing for and the tribunal will have to be satisfied that the reason was sufficiently substantial Pennington v Avensure Ltd ET Case No.2403160/16.[33]If the reason established by the employer is a potentially fair reason under section 98(1)(a) or (b) the tribunal must then determine the question of fairness in accordance with section 98(4): “(4) Where the employer has fulfilled the requirements of subsection (1), the determination of the question whether the dismissal is fair or unfair (having regard to the reason shown by the employer) –(a) depends on whether in the circumstances (including the size and administrative resources of the employer’s undertaking) the employer acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating it as a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee; and(b) shall be determined in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case. “[34]The Tribunal must determine whether the employer’s actions fell within the range of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer in the circumstances (Iceland Frozen Foods Limited v Jones [1983] ICR 17 (approved by the Court of Appeal in Post Office v Foley, HSBC Bank plc (formerly Midland Bank plc) v Madden [2000] IRLR 827)). The Tribunal must not substitute its decision for that of the employer. I bear that in mind and apply that test in considering all questions concerning the fairness of the dismissal. Submissions[35]The claimant’s Solicitor submitted that, on the basis of the evidence of EC, the reason for dismissal was not capability or conduct and the claimant had not established a fair reason for dismissal. A reasonable employer would have waited for the GP to comment on the OH report and gone back to the OHA for comment. If the respondent had followed a fair process the claimant would have been able to return to work around February 2021. The two doctors would have come to a consensus that this was a reasonable time to wait. There was no failure to cooperate by the claimant. He engaged with the process throughout, sending Fit notes and made every effort to obtain the GP’s comments on the OH report.[36]The respondent’s Solicitor submitted that the reason for dismissal was the ‘impasse’ which arose during the capability process. The respondent believed, on reasonable grounds, that the claimant was fit to return to work on reduced hours and the claimant did not. He submitted that the decision to dismiss was for SOSR and within the band of reasonable responses. It was reasonable for the respondent to favour the OH report over the evidence from the claimant’s GP. He argued that the claimant was given every opportunity to provide further evidence and he did not and this contributed to his dismissal. The claimant applied for jobs from January 2021 which contradicted his case that he was not fit to return to the respondent company at the time of the sickness procedure.
Conclusions
[37]I will now consider, on the basis of the reason I find as to why employer dismissed the claimant, whether a reasonable employer could have dismissed for that reason. Secondly, on the basis of the facts I have found about steps taken in the investigation, whether a reasonable employer would have adopted those steps. Reason for dismissal[38]In my view the respondent has established the principal reason for dismissal. The claimant was dismissed because of the belief held by GL and subsequently by EC that a stalemate had been reached. I have found that they did not believe capability was the reason as they considered the claimant capable of returning to work on reduced hours. They decided that the claimant’s failure to return to work was unreasonable and they may have thought there was an element of misconduct. However, the principal reason was not misconduct; GL and EC did not consider they needed to directly address this possibility as they considered the stalemate (or impasse) they had reached was a sufficient reason to dismiss. Was that potentially fair?[39]I find that the belief that there was a stalemate or impasse was genuine but I need to consider whether the respondent’s belief amounted to a potentially fair reason. The reason asserted by the respondent is ‘some other substantial reason’. I must therefore consider whether the respondent’s belief was a reason of a kind such as to justify the dismissal of the claimant. I find that it was not. It was not reasonable to assume a stalemate had been reached because the claimant had a different view of the OH report’s conclusion without referring back to the OHA and waiting a reasonable time for the GP to comment on the report. The proper action would be to try and find the reason for the difference and help the employee back to work. If there is no prospect of returning to work because of illness then the respondent may consider dismissing on the grounds of capability but this respondent did not think the claimant was incapable of returning to work. The respondent thought he was fit for work, albeit on reduced hours. If a respondent concludes that the employee is refusing to try and return to work and dismisses for that reason the reason will be one that relates to the employee’s conduct. That is not the reason asserted by the respondent and although disciplinary proceedings were referred to such a procedure was not initiated. Indeed, it would not have been reasonable as the respondent had not made any attempt to explore the difference in views about the medical reports. I therefore conclude that the respondent has not satisfied section 98(1)(b) and the dismissal was unfair. Did the respondent act reasonably in all the circumstances in treating that as a sufficient reason to dismiss the claimant?[40]As I have found that the reason was not a potentially fair reason I do not need to consider whether the respondent acted reasonably. However, for completeness, if I had found there was a potentially fair reason, either SOSR or capability, then I would find that the respondent acted unreasonably in treating it as a sufficient reason for dismissal.[41]I have considered whether the respondent carried out a fair and reasonable investigation. I find that they did not. The respondent company was a relatively large company with HR support and I take this into account. The respondent did not contact the claimant about his sickness until he had been absent for 3.5 months but then completed the sickness investigation within a period of just over one month. The respondent made a decision early in the investigation to prefer the report of the OHA. It did not take into account the qualified nature of the conclusions in the report, the conflict with the claimant’s views and those of his GP. It did not wait a reasonable time for a response from the GP or revert to the OHA for further clarification. It did not take into account the GP letter at the appeal. I find that a reasonable employer would have allowed more time for the investigation and would decide that those steps were necessary. I find this particularly in the light that the claimant had 19 years’ service, a previously good sickness record and was entitled to 52 weeks sick pay under his contract of employment.[42]As regards procedure generally, I find that the procedure followed was not reasonable. The claimant was not provided with the outcomes of the meetings in writing and he was not clearly advised of the respondent’s case that he was capable of returning to work and given an opportunity to answer it. The respondent gave the claimant less than 24 hours’ notice to return to work without waiting for the action agreed at the second meeting to be completed and appeared to equate his failure to return with conduct. At the appeal meeting the respondent refused to accept the GP’s letter which stated that the claimant needed ‘total rest at home’ because it was not signed or dated. I find that a reasonable employer would have accepted the letter or made enquiries to establish its authenticity.[43]In any event I find that a reasonable employer would not have reached the view that the claimant was well enough to return to work on the basis of the OH report alone. The respondent placed undue emphasis on the fact that the claimant had not seen his GP in person and not enough weight on the difficulties caused by the pandemic at that time. The report recommended that the claimant see a consultant and conceded that he remained unfit to undertake his full duties. The respondent made no attempt to discuss with the claimant the nature of the duties he would undertake on his return. I find this was not within the band of responses of a reasonable employer. If the reason was not a potentially fair reason, what was the likelihood that the claimant would have been dismissed in any event? On what date would it have taken place? The Polkey issue[44]I agreed with the parties at the start of the hearing that if I concluded that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed, I should consider whether any adjustment should be made to the compensation on the grounds that if a fair process had been followed by the respondent in dealing with the claimant’s case, the claimant might have been fairly dismissed, in accordance with the principles in Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1987] UKHL 8, Software 2000 Ltd v Andrews [2007] ICR 825; W Devis & Sons Ltd v Atkins [1977] 3 All ER 40; and Crédit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Wardle [2011] IRLR. I turn to this issue now.[45]The options open to me are as follows: First, I may find that the claimant would clearly have been retained if proper procedures had been adopted, in which case no reduction ought to be made. Second, I may conclude that the dismissal would have occurred in any event, with a possible delay to allow for a fair procedure. This may result in a limited compensatory award to take account of any additional period for which the employee would have been employed had the proper procedure been adopted. Third, it may be impossible to say what would have happened, and I should make a percentage assessment of the likelihood that the employee would have been retained.[46]I am not assessing what I would have done; I am assessing what this employer would or might have done. I must assess the actions of the employer before me, on the assumption that the employer would this time have acted fairly though it did not do so beforehand: Hill v Governing Body of Great Tey Primary School [2013] IRLR 274 at para 24.[47]I find that the claimant would have been able to return to work sometime between the middle of February and the end of May 2021. I base this on the fact that the claimant started to manage his condition and feel better immediately after seeing the consultant at the end of January 2021. The consultant asked in his report to see him in 4 months which would take him to the end of May. I note that at that time he would still have been in receipt of the 52 weeks’ sick pay to which he was entitled. I consider that a reasonable employer would have waited for the consultant report and then referred back to the OHA and managed the claimant’s return to work by the end of May 2021.On those grounds I find that there should be no deduction for Polkey. Should there be any deduction from the basic award for conduct prior to dismissal? Regarding the compensatory award, did the claimant cause or contribute to his dismissal and if so, to what extent?[48]I find that the claimant cooperated with the process throughout, attending all the meetings and keeping the respondent fully informed by forwarding sick notes and updating the respondent on his attempts to obtain the GP’s comments on the OH report. I therefore do not consider there should be any deduction from the basic or compensatory award.