Tribunal Rules Disabled Employee Unfairly Dismissed Following Covert Surveillance
A recent employment tribunal has found that a disabled warehouse operative was unfairly dismissed by his employer after being secretly filmed and accused of exaggerating his impairment. The case highlights serious concerns about employer conduct, disability discrimination, and the misuse of surveillance in workplace investigations.
Background
Neil Wilson, employed by Aliaxis UK Limited, a Kent-based plastic piping manufacturer, was signed off sick in May 2022 due to back and elbow pain. From January 2023, he began receiving 70% of his salary under the company’s group income protection policy, provided by the insurers.
Despite an occupational health (OH) assessment confirming Wilson was unfit to work, the company’s HR Director, Joanne Askham, initiated covert surveillance after expressing doubts about his condition. She monitored his social media and hired private investigators, citing concerns over his physical activity in videos and public appearances.
The Employer’s Actions
Askham presented Wilson with three stark options:
Resign from his position.
Undergo capability proceedings, potentially leading to dismissal.
Have the matter referred to Unum’s fraud department.
Despite a second OH assessment in May 2023 reaffirming Wilson’s inability to work, Aliaxis terminated his employment in June 2023 on grounds of capability. The tribunal found that the employer failed to properly consider the medical evidence or explore reinstating insurance payments.
Tribunal Findings
The Ashford Employment Tribunal ruled that:
Wilson was unfairly dismissed.
He experienced discrimination arising from disability.
The employer failed to follow a fair process and did not give Wilson a proper opportunity to respond to allegations.
The use of covert surveillance and the framing of the absence meeting were inappropriate and undermined procedural fairness.
However, the tribunal dismissed claims of direct disability discrimination, harassment, and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
Implications for Employers
This case serves as a cautionary tale for employers considering surveillance or disciplinary action against disabled employees. It underscores the importance of:
Relying on qualified medical assessments.
Ensuring fair and transparent procedures.
Avoiding assumptions based on social media or surveillance footage.
Respecting the protections afforded under the Equality Act 2010.
At Lawson West Solicitors, we support employees facing unfair treatment and advise employers on best practices to avoid costly tribunal outcomes. If you’ve been affected by similar issues or need guidance on disability-related employment matters, our expert team is here to help.
