These pages do not apply outside the United Kingdom.

Baynton v Saurus General Engineers

[1999] IRLR 604

The applicant, who drove a forklift truck and pressed pipe connections, had lost dexterity in his left hand and been off work for almost a year. He was dismissed. At the time he was waiting for an appointment with his surgeon to discuss whether he was fit enough to return to work.

Held by the Employment Appeal Tribunal: in considering whether there is "justification" for discrimination, "the tribunal must carry out a balancing exercise between the interests of the disabled employee and the interests of the employer. It is material to consider the applicant's circumstances as well as those of the employer " (paras 36-37). Had the employer warned the applicant that he was at risk of dismissal and found out the up-to-date medical position, they would have found out about the consultation. The industrial tribunal should have taken the desirability of waiting for the outcome of the consultation into the balance against the other factors when deciding whether the employer was "justified" in dismissing the employee when he did.

A full transcript of the judgment is available at www.employmentappeals.gov.uk/Public/Upload/EAT1002981471999.doc.

In Kenrick v HJ Heinz Ltd, the Tribunal was inclined to limit the scope of any balancing exercise under the Baynton case.

Employment: Justification

Top