Tribunal: firing psoriasis sufferer was not "unfair"

Wednesday 09 January 2019

Cimandis was within its rights to fire a delivery driver when his skin condition became too difficult for the needs of the job, a tribunal has ruled, after the food supply company was accused of "unfair" treatment.

Carlos Rodrigues, who was a driver and storeman for Cimandis for over 18 years, claimed he should be compensated as his employer “failed to make reasonable adjustments” after he contracted psoriasis – but his claim was dismissed by the Employment Tribunal.

The tribunal ultimately found that the Channel Islands food service company “followed a reasonable process” when it came to dismissing Mr Rodrigues.

In her written judgment, the Tribunal’s Deputy Chairman, Advocate Claire Davies, outlined the facts of the case and gave her reasons for reaching this conclusion.

Pictured: The Deputy Chairman of the Employment Tribunal Advocate Claire Davies ultimately ruled against Mr Rodrigues's claim.

In 2016, Mr Rodrigues began to suffer from the disease which “affected the skin on his hands and feet” and during flare-ups, it “severely limited” his “ability to drive and to make deliveries.” 

The psoriasis was so debilitating that in 2017, Mr Rodrigues was signed off for 163 days out of the 312 he was contracted to work.

In response to their employee’s health condition, Cimandis referred Mr Rodrigues to their occupational health provider who conducted a total of two consultations with him over the phone and made various recommendations as to how best to manage the situation.

The Tribunal heard that on two occasions, Cimandis tried to move Mr Rodrigues temporarily into their dry warehouse to allow his condition to improve. However, when Mr Rodrigues had to return to his normal post as a delivery driver due to “staff requirements”, his psoriasis “flared up again."

Pictured: The tribunal heard how the psoriasis flare-ups made it difficult for the employee to conduct his role.

According to the judgment, the company eventually decided to conduct a formal assessment to check whether Mr Rodrigues was capable of holding his post as a delivery driver, which was carried out between March and April last year. It was as a result of this investigation that Mr Rodrigues was fired.

Advocate Davies wrote: “The employer felt that they had done everything reasonable to help [Mr Rodrigues]. The business needed a storeman/driver who was fit to drive and make deliveries as an essential part of his duties. There was no position available in the dry warehouse."

The Deputy Chairman added that the company felt “it was not practicable for the business to create a role for [Mr Rodrigues] in the dry store whilst recruiting an additional delivery man/driver." "Alternative roles were considered, but [Mr Rodrigues] had turned them down," she noted.

However, Mr Rodrigues argued that Cimandis “had failed to make reasonable adjustments for his condition." According to him, his employer “should not have required him to drive when that made his condition worse” and that they “should have kept him in the dry warehouse where he would have recovered given enough time".

Pictured: The Tribunal ultimately ruled in favour of Channel Island food service business Cimandis.

The judgment notes that Mr Rodrigues felt, “...he was a longstanding employee and the employer should have done more to keep him."

But the Deputy Chairman felt that the company had made effort to accommodate Mr Rodrigues and his health condition, concluding that he was ultimately dismissed “for legitimate business reasons."

Mr Rodrigues’s compensation claim was therefore dismissed.