It follows from the case record that the reasons for rejecting the Applicant’s return-to-work plan on 13 May 2019 were only presented to the Applicant in the Respondent’s reply submitted by Counsel for the Respondent. This was evidently a procedural error. The scope of this irregularity was exacerbated by the statutory requirement of sec. 2.2 of ST/SGB/2019/3, which demands “the manager … to establish that the requested accommodations represent a disproportionate or undue burden on the workplace” (italics added). The Applicant’s manager was not Counsel for the Respondent before the Dispute...