Miss Zeitler, counsel, and the claimant in person For the v Respondent — 2017

The claimant was employed as a seasonal security guard at the Llandegfedd Reservoir and was found to be disabled by reason of type I diabetes. The tribunal accepted that the respondent only became aware of his condition after the hypoglycaemic episode on 10 October 2014. It also accepted that the relevant PCP was lone working at a relatively isolated site and patrolling it on foot or by car, which placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage because, if he collapsed after an attack, no one would be immediately available to assist him.

On the reasonable-adjustments claim, the tribunal held that the three adjustments advanced by the claimant would not themselves avoid that disadvantage: a telephone booster, removing the need to use a car on site, and making the gate openable from outside. It found, however, that a different adjustment would have been reasonable, namely moving the claimant to another site or swapping him with another guard. The respondent had not consulted the claimant's GP or an occupational health professional and had instead relied on internet research, so the section 20 and 21 claim succeeded.

The section 15 claim also succeeded. The respondent accepted that deciding the claimant could no longer work at the reservoir and not offering him other work was unfavourable treatment arising from something in consequence of his disability, and it relied on health and safety as a legitimate aim. The tribunal held that the response was not proportionate because relocation or a job swap would have been a more proportionate step and because no proper medical assessment had been carried out before the decision. On victimisation, the tribunal found that the grievance and ET1 were protected acts, rejected the bad-faith case, and held that the offer of re-engagement was withdrawn because the respondent believed the claimant would bring discrimination claims if rehired.

The tribunal found that the claimant had not been dismissed but had resigned by requesting his P45. It also held that even if that conclusion were wrong, any failure to follow the Acas code would not have been unreasonable. This was a liability-only judgment: remedy was left to later directions and no monetary award was determined in the judgment.