In McAdie v Royal Bank of Scotland, the Court of Appeal held that a dismissal will not necessarily be unfair just because the employer’s actions are the cause of an employee’s illness. The Court emphasised, however, that the cause of an employee's incapability is a factor to be considered in deciding whether the employer acted reasonably. Furthermore, where the employer is responsible for the employee's ill-health, then an employer should ‘go the extra mile’ to look for alternative employment or allow for a longer period of sickness before taking action. In L v M the EAT had to consider the McAdie principle in a case where the employer did not cause the employee’s ill health, but its actions made the employee’s ill health worse.

M was involved with a number of complaints and counter-complaints of harassment outside work between her and P. Some complaints made by P alleged that M was misusing information on the employer’s data base and the police became involved. M started to suffer from depression. M was informed that her employer had emails which would exonerate her but the employer refused to provide them. M eventually obtained the information and she was cleared of any wrongdoing. M found the employer’s failure to release the information absolving her to be very disturbing and stressful. M was absent due to ill health for 162 days mainly due to depression caused by the situation with P, of which the employer was well aware. The employer invoked its attendance procedure. The manager handling the case decided the real cause of M’s condition was her own lifestyle choice of engaging in a social network and the employer could not be responsible for any consequences. M was dismissed.

An employment tribunal (ET) found the dismissal unfair. The employer had not caused M’s ill health, but her reactive depression was worsened because the employer had failed to release information in its possession which would have cleared her from allegations of harassment and would have removed the cause of her depression. The employer had therefore not acted reasonably. The EAT rejected the employer’s appeal. Given the ET’s findings, the McAdie principle applied. The employer was in some sense responsible for the employee’s illness. In addition, McAdie does not apply just to cases where the employer is alleged to have caused the ill health but also where the employer has contributed to an existing condition worsening. Given the facts, the ET was entitled to find that dismissal was unreasonable in all the circumstances.

The case emphasises that where the employer is in one sense or another responsible for an employee's incapacity, then as a matter of common sense, fairness and reasonableness, that fact is relevant as to whether, and if so when, it is reasonable to dismiss for that incapacity. The case also clarifies that McAdie applies, not just where the employer has caused the employee’s illness, but also where the employer is responsible for making it worse.

Content Note

The aim is to provide summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. In particular, where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out full details of all the facts, the legal arguments presented by the parties and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Click on the links provided to access full details. If no link is provided contact us for further information. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, SM&B cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.