The scope of reasonable adjustments remains a tricky area. In O’Hanlon v Commissioner for Revenue and Customs [2007] ICR 1359, Elias LJ reminded us that the function of a reasonable adjustment was to enable the disabled to return to work and lead productive lives with dignity, although the Court of Appeal rejected the idea that an employee should not suffer a reduction in sick pay where the reason for the absence was disability related.

The EAT recently reviewed this judgment in G4S Cash Solutions (UK) Ltd v Powell UKEAT 0243/15. Back problems meant that the claimant could no longer work as a skilled engineer and he was moved to a lower paid role and given pay protection for a year, before his employer decided his salary would have to be reduced to the going rate. HH Judge Richardson in the EAT reviewed O’Hanlon and Archibald v Fife Council [2004] ICR 954, noting that in the latter the House of Lords had been clear that moving to a higher grade with a better salary might be a reasonable adjustment. In O’Hanlon the Court of Appeal had been reluctant to establish a general rule that in all cases disabled employees should enjoy full sick pay, pointing out that this might in fact be a disincentive to returning to work and might impose an intolerable financial burden on employers which the courts should eschew. However, the judge noted that in individual cases issues of costs were a matter that tribunals could properly consider. Here the employer’s main concern seemed to be that other staff might object to the preferential treatment being accorded to Mr. Powell. This was given short shrift and the tribunal’s finding that he was entitled to pay protection as a reasonable adjustment upheld.

Susan  Belgrave, 7 Bedford Row