The Court had to decide whether or not the complainant was discriminatorily dismissed on the grounds of his disability and whether the respondent was in a position for the claimant to continue in employment. The complainant suffered from a series of brain haemorrhages which resulted in brain surgery, the complainant began to suffer from depression and developed an alcohol problem which resulted in him being medically diagnosed as an alcoholic. The complainant did not disclose his alcoholism to his employer but acknowledged that his employer was aware that he suffered with depression. 

The complainant conceded that as a result his attendance record was unsatisfactory which consequently resulted in him being processed through a disciplinary process by the Respondent. Upon recognising his alcoholism he took steps to deal with the problem, entering a full-time treatment programme for a period of three months, notifying the respondent before being admitted on the programme. Following successful completion of the programme, he sought to return to work, he met with work and outlined the steps which he took to deal with his disability. The Complainant was dismissed by the respondent, claiming that the claimant did not meet the standards required by the company. 

The basis of the claimant’s argument surrounded the Respondent’s knowledge of his disability and the employer’s failure to make any effort to accommodate the claimant’s return to work following treatment. In essence, he argued that this failure amounted to discrimination on the grounds of disability. Furthermore, the claimant noted how on two previous occasions the respondent had assisted other employees with their alcohol problems and given them opportunity to prove that their treatment had been effective and successful. 

The Respondent argued that the decision to dismiss the claimant was the direct result of a lengthy disciplinary process as a result of the complainant’s unacceptable attendance record. The claimant in the process was advised that without attendance improvement, he would be subject to further sanctions. Counter to the claimant’s argument, the respondent noted that the claimant was advised that the company would provide whatever assistance that was necessary to support the claimant. Despite numerous opportunities to do so on no occasion did the claimant provide reasoning as to his poor attendance record. 

The Court held that despite being aware of the complainant’s condition, the respondent effectively ignored it. The court held that, “It is clear that the respondent had an obligation to consider whether his condition prevented him from so doing [the duties of the post] and whether he could with reasonable accommodation be put into a position to do so. It failed to do so.” 

Furthermore the court noted how the complainant had established the fact that he suffered from a disability and had brought it the employer’s attention, this disability had affected his capacity to attend work before it was diagnosed. Despite the fact that the claimant had sought help and attempted to return to work, the respondent had continued to dismiss him.

The court found from the facts that an inference of discrimination could be drawn as the responded had failed to explain "why it decided to ignore the information" from the complainant. The Court as a result instructed that the respondent was to re-engage the complainant with effect from the date of the Labour Court's determination. 
http://bit.ly/Nx3Vln