A British Army veteran who was sacked from the Prison Service after taking 98 consecutive days off due to his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has won an £82,000 payout for unfair dismissal. Morgan Armstrong, a former bombardier who served in Iraq, Afghanistan, and on European operational tours, worked at HMP Manchester from 2019 until late 2023.
The soldier was dismissed after an extended period of absence related to his PTSD, a condition known to his Prison Service superiors. The prison bosses believed they had served him with two formal notices regarding his time off, which were logged on an internal system. However, Mr. Armstrong had received two contrasting letters stating that he was not subject to formal disciplinary action.
An employment tribunal ruled that his dismissal was unfair and constituted discrimination arising from his PTSD, which is a legally recognised disability. The prison bosses claimed he had been 'blasé' about his absence during the dismissal meeting. However, Employment Judge Phil Allen concluded that they had not considered the depression and anxiety stemming from his PTSD, which might have affected his demeanour.
Background of the Case
The tribunal, held in Manchester, heard that Mr. Armstrong had taken several leaves of absence due to flu and mental health issues. After 39 days off over three years, he was summoned to a meeting where prison bosses said he received a formal warning. In reality, he was given a letter stating he was not subject to formal action.
Following another absence, he was again summoned to a meeting where manager Wayne Howard claimed he issued a final formal warning. But, as Mr. Howard later admitted in error, he gave the veteran a letter stating: 'I am not pursuing formal action on this occasion.' This led Mr. Armstrong to believe he was not on notice.
The Dismissal Process
Matters escalated when he applied to move from wing duties to full-time prisoner escorting, turning down offers for 'mundane' visiting shifts. In early September 2023, he called in sick and did not return. During his absence, he was told by his manager and a colleague that he would be moved to external duties as hoped. However, in October, he learned he would be placed on visiting duties he had not applied for, causing a 'massive dip' in his mental health.
Medical reports suggested he had stopped taking antidepressants because he felt better, but symptoms returned 'with a vengeance'. The report stated: 'Once his mental health symptoms do start to improve, he could attempt a phased return to work, and I anticipate it could take a few months until he feels well enough to return when his medications take full effect.' No return date was given, but he told manager Simon Eve he hoped to return when his sick note expired. Prison bosses interpreted this as meaning he was unfit for work, which the tribunal said was incorrect.
On December 11, 2023, Mr. Armstrong was sacked for his 'terrible' absence record. The decision took as little as two minutes, and he attended the meeting 'blind' without paperwork. He testified that everything he said fell on 'deaf ears' and the decision 'had already been made'. He was not asked about a possible return date. An appeal was refused.
Tribunal Findings
Robert Knight, governing governor of HMP Manchester, claimed Mr. Armstrong had been 'blasé' in the meeting. However, Judge Allen noted: 'We would observe that what Mr. Knight might have been interpreting was the demeanour that would be expected of somebody with anxiety, depression and PTSD, particularly someone who was having issues with their medication at the time.'
The judge found that Mr. Armstrong was unfairly dismissed, suffered unlawful discrimination arising from disability, and that the Prison Service breached its duty to make reasonable adjustments. Other claims of direct disability discrimination and unfair treatment were not upheld.
The total award of £82,067.62 was reduced by 40% due to a 'realistic possibility that... a fair and non-discriminatory decision to dismiss might have been made'. The award included a £3,500 basic award, £30,000 compensation, £41,000 losses, and £7,700 interest. A request to reconsider the reduction was denied.
Judge Allen concluded: 'The employer could have been expected to wait longer for the claimant's return.' Mr. Armstrong and HM Prison Service were contacted for comment.
