Case 1404339/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr C J Tucker v Gaiger Brothers Limited — 2024

Case reference: 1404339/2023
Decision date: 25 November 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Woodhead
Venue: in person at the Bristol
Panel members: Mr K Sleeth, Ms J Cusack

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr C J Tucker

Respondent

Gaiger Brothers Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mr Tucker had worked for Gaiger Brothers Limited as storeman for many years. The tribunal found the role was not office-based: it was busiest at the start and end of the day, involved handling stock generally up to 25kg, and used manual handling aids including forklifts and sack trucks. The respondent accepted that he was disabled, with asthma and COPD. On 23 March 2023 he told Mr G Gaiger that he had COPD, said he was struggling with full-time work and wanted to reduce hours and dust exposure, and on 24 and 27 March he emailed about part-time work and possible ventilation. He resigned on 30 March 2023. The hearing determined liability only, so no compensation was assessed.

The indirect disability discrimination claim turned on two PCPs: requiring full-time work and requiring heavy manual tasks. The tribunal held that the Manual Tasks PCP was applied and could disadvantage disabled workers because reduced lung function made the role more draining, but it was a proportionate means of achieving the respondent's legitimate aims of moving stock efficiently, with manual handling aids available and help from a colleague. It held that the Full-Time PCP did not put disabled workers at a particular disadvantage, and in any event the respondent had a discussion-and-review process that was not given time to run. The reasonable adjustments claim failed because the respondent only knew of the disadvantage on 23 March 2023 and the claimant resigned before the proposed adjustments could reasonably be implemented.

The age discrimination claim failed because the tribunal did not accept that the PCPs particularly disadvantaged workers in their mid-fifties or that the claimant's difficulties were age-related, and it held the PCPs justified in any event. The constructive unfair dismissal claim failed because the respondent's conduct was not a fundamental breach or a breach of trust and confidence, the claimant had already decided to take the Wiltshire County Council role, and he did not allow a reasonable time for discussion. Wrongful dismissal therefore failed as well, and the written particulars complaint failed because the tribunal found he had been issued with a statement of employment particulars and no section 38 Employment Act 2002 award was due. The respondent later gave him a £1,000 gift for his service, but the tribunal made no monetary award.

Claims and outcomes

6 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	Indirect disability discrimination under s.19 EqA 2010 based on the Full-Time PCP and Manual Tasks PCP. The Manual Tasks PCP was found to disadvantage disabled workers but was justified as a proportionate means of achieving the respondent's aims; the Full-Time PCP was not found to put disabled workers at a particular disadvantage and was also held justified.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Age discrimination	Indirect age discrimination under s.19 EqA 2010 based on the same PCPs. The tribunal did not accept that workers in their mid-fifties were put at a particular disadvantage or that the claimant's difficulties were age-related, and it held the PCPs justified in any event.	Dismissed	Age	—
Disability discrimination	Failure to make reasonable adjustments under ss.20-21 EqA 2010. The tribunal found the respondent only knew, or could reasonably have been expected to know, of the disadvantage from 23 March 2023 and that the proposed adjustments could not reasonably have been implemented before the claimant resigned.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Constructive dismissal	Constructive unfair dismissal under s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996. The tribunal found no fundamental breach of contract or breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, and found the claimant resigned without giving the respondent a reasonable opportunity to consider options.	Dismissed	—	—
Wrongful dismissal	Wrongful dismissal / notice pay. The claim failed because the claimant was not constructively dismissed and was not entitled to contractual or statutory notice pay.

Legal tests applied

10 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

How we got this data

Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.

Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.