Mr R Bryce v Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council — 2022

Mr Bryce, who was found to be disabled by Asperger's syndrome and dyslexia, worked for Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council as an Enforcement Officer from 24 September 2019 until his dismissal on 30 July 2020. The tribunal found that the council knew of his disabilities, extended his probation, provided repeated training and support, and engaged occupational health and Access to Work input. It rejected the respondent's case that he had engineered his dismissal or brought the proceedings as part of a vexatious litigation strategy, and the respondent's strike-out application failed.

On discrimination arising from disability, the tribunal accepted that the claimant was treated unfavourably when dismissed and when his appeals were rejected. It found that problems with communication, writing, reading, memory, arithmetic and related skills arose in consequence of his disabilities, and that those matters caused his poor performance. However, it held that the dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving the respondent's legitimate aim of properly carrying out a public service, and that the appeal decisions were made because the respondent considered the dismissal had been procedurally sound rather than because of disability.

The indirect discrimination and reasonable adjustments claims failed. The tribunal found that the probation policy and the performance-measure system used by the line manager were PCPs, but that the claimant had not shown they put disabled staff, or him, at a substantial disadvantage. It also rejected the parking and grievance formulations as PCPs. On the separate reasonable adjustments claim concerning the online application process for the Revenue Shared Services Manager role, the tribunal accepted that an online application form could be a PCP, but found that the claimant was not in fact disadvantaged in that process because he had previously completed a similar form successfully and the respondent could not reasonably have been expected to know of the disadvantage alleged.

The harassment claim was based on two events: contact with Elite Security and the reference sent to Staffordshire County Council. The tribunal held that the Elite Security contact was linked to the claimant's tribunal litigation rather than to disability, and in any event fell within legal immunity. It also found that the Staffordshire reference was not harassment because it was not related to disability. The same reference was, however, found to be a detriment given because the claimant had brought Employment Tribunal proceedings, so the victimisation claim succeeded. The tribunal listed the victimisation claim for a separate one-day remedy hearing and did not quantify any monetary award in this judgment.

The unlawful deduction from wages claim about flexi-time and travel on 24 June 2020 was dismissed because the claimant did not prove he had been underpaid under his contract. The tribunal also recorded that the wider proceedings were not vexatious within rule 37, and that the claimant's other litigation history did not justify striking out these claims.