Case 1600051/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Morgan v Bergstrom Europe Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1600051/2021
- Decision date
- 9 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Havard Members
- Venue
- Cardiff
- Panel members
- Mrs C Izzard, Mr R Mead
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Morgan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Morgan was employed as Quality Manager and the respondent accepted that he had ankylosing spondylitis, which was a disability within the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found that the respondent had previously accommodated his condition, and that when the COVID-19 lockdown began the claimant was placed on furlough on 27 March 2020 before the respondent was told on 3 and 6 April 2020 that he had been advised to shield for 12 weeks.
The tribunal found that the business then went through a significant reduction in activity, that members of the Quality team returned from furlough gradually as demand increased, and that Mr Thrupp had greater capacity after his role changed and his involvement with Dirna Bergstrom ended. It accepted the respondent's evidence that parts of the claimant's work were redistributed within the team and that the role of Quality Manager was no longer required as a separate post. Applying the redundancy principles under the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal found the dismissal was genuinely by reason of redundancy and that the consultation process, selection pool of one, and consideration of alternative employment were within the range of reasonable responses.
The direct discrimination claim failed because the tribunal found no basis to infer that the claimant was treated less favourably because of disability, and it found the dismissal decision was linked entirely to the redundancy decision rather than to disability. The section 15 claim also failed: the tribunal found that the claimant was not isolated from social contact, that work-related restrictions flowed from furlough rules rather than disability, and that his continued furlough after August 2020 reflected the respondent's view that there was no work for him to do. The reasonable adjustments claim failed because the tribunal found there was no requirement for the claimant to return to work in circumstances where the respondent had concluded that there was no business need for him, so the suggested adjustments did not arise on the facts. All claims were dismissed and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the principal reason for dismissal was redundancy, and that the consultation, selection and search for alternative work were fair. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination under section 13 EqA 2010; the tribunal found no facts from which less favourable treatment because of disability could be inferred. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability under section 15 EqA 2010; the tribunal found the challenged treatment was not because of anything arising in consequence of disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 EqA 2010; the tribunal found no adjustment duty arose on the facts because the respondent did not require the claimant to return to work. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
14 references- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.139 ERA 1996
- Safeway Stores plc v Burrell 3-stage test
- Moon v Homeworthy Furniture
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd
- Capita Hartshead v Byard
- R v British Coal Corporation ex parte Price
- John Brown Engineering Ltd v Brown
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Igen v Wong burden of proof
- Madarassy v Nomura International Plc
- Basildon & Thurrock NHS Foundation Trust v Weerasinghe
- Smith v Churchill's Stairlifts plc
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe 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.
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.