Full Breakdown
Disabled Employee Wins £329,000 After Unlawful Dismissal by Pilkington
5/12/2026, 12:44:46 PM
Core Event: Dismissal, Tribunal Ruling, Compensation
Mr Jones, a Pilkington employee since 1983, was dismissed in October 2019 after the firm used surveillance footage that showed him briefly lifting a bag of potatoes and handling a hosepipe while on sick leave. The Employment Tribunal ruled in August 2021 that the dismissal amounted to disability discrimination, a decision upheld by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in April 2023. Pilkington was ordered to pay more than £329,000 in compensation for lost earnings and the six-year dispute.
Background & Context
Pilkington initiated the surveillance after reports that Mr Jones was seen wearing work boots and assisting a friend with a farming task. The company interpreted the brief activity as evidence of unauthorized work, despite his disability-related sick leave. The tribunal highlighted that Pilkington did not obtain updated medical evidence before terminating his employment.
Key Figures & Organizations
Key participants: Mr Jones (employee), Pilkington (employer), Unite the Union (representing him), Thompsons Solicitors (legal counsel, Bernie Wentworth), and Stephen Pinder (Unite legal director).
Why It Matters
The judgment clarifies that employers must rely on current medical evidence rather than assumptions or surveillance when assessing a disabled worker’s capacity. It reinforces statutory protections and signals that unlawful dismissal can attract substantial compensation, influencing employer policies nationwide.
Official Statements & Responses
The Employment Tribunal concluded that Pilkington acted on an erroneous assumption linked to Mr Jones’s disability, violating discrimination law. The Appeal Tribunal affirmed that employers must secure up-to-date medical evidence before taking adverse action. Pilkington issued no comment in the sources.
Criticism & Opposition
Legal representatives warned that employer-initiated surveillance poses systemic risks and undermines statutory protections for disabled workers. Bernie Wentworth stressed the need for proper understanding of disability conditions, while Stephen Pinder cautioned that reliance on assumptions erodes legal safeguards.
Verbatim Quotes
- “When I became unfit for work, I expected support – not suspicion, and certainly not to be dismissed for something that wasn't true.” — Mr Jones, former employee
- “This case highlights the consequences of employers making assumptions about disabled workers rather than properly understanding their condition and the medical evidence.” — Bernie Wentworth, Head of Employment Rights, Thompsons Solicitors
- “ Stephen Pinder, Unite's Legal Director, stated: "This case sends a clear message that employers cannot rely on assumptions or surveillance to override medical evidence when dealing with disabled workers.” — Stephen Pinder, Legal Director, Unite the Union
- “Article continues below "Alan was a loyal employee for decades and deserved support and fair treatment, not suspicion and dismissal.” — Stephen Pinder
