Mr W Adams v Power X Equipment Limited — 2022

Mr Wayne Adams worked for Power X Equipment Limited from 4 January 2018 until his dismissal on redundancy grounds with an effective date of termination of 30 October 2020. The tribunal dealt with claims for detriment under sections 44 and 47B ERA 1996, disability discrimination by failure to make reasonable adjustments, unfair dismissal, and unlawful deduction from wages. It accepted that the 18 March 2020 email about a colleague allegedly attending work with COVID symptoms was a qualifying disclosure, and that Mr Adams's refusal to attend work that day was protected health and safety action, but it did not accept that his May 2020 refusal to return to office-based work was protected in the same way.

On disability, the tribunal accepted that Mr Adams had asthma, but found the evidence showed only that the condition was controlled by medication and that there was no medical evidence of a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities during the relevant period. It also found that he had not informed the respondent of the asthma before the relevant events and that he was not clinically vulnerable or told to shield. The reasonable adjustments claim therefore failed because the claimant was not shown to be disabled within section 6 EqA 2010 and the duty was not established on the facts found.

The detriment claims failed because the tribunal found no adverse consequence flowed from the 18 March 2020 refusal to attend work, and it accepted the respondent's evidence that the claimant was placed on furlough by agreement rather than as a punishment. It also rejected the alleged detriments said to arise from the refusal of flexible furlough, the redundancy risk, the denial of training, the alleged instruction not to contact colleagues, the delayed bonus payments, and the absence of a laptop or phone, finding that those matters were either not linked to the protected disclosure or protected action, or were not detriments in the way alleged.

The unfair dismissal claim failed because the tribunal found the sole reason for dismissal was redundancy. It accepted that the pandemic had reduced turnover from £27 million to a projected £16 million, that the Spares Department only required one employee rather than three, and that it was reasonable to pool the three departmental employees for selection. It also accepted that there was an extensive consultation process, that objective selection criteria were applied, and that alternative roles were considered, including one that would have required relocation which the claimant said he would not do. The unlawful deduction claim also failed because the tribunal held that the claimant had agreed to furlough on 80% pay, so the additional 20% was not recoverable as wages. No monetary award was made.