Mr M. Gregory v Kingspan Limited — 2021

Mr M. Gregory worked for Kingspan Ltd from 2007 until his dismissal on 18 May 2018. The tribunal accepted that he had bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and recorded that he made a number of protected disclosures and protected acts over 2016 and 2018. It also found, however, that at the material time Kingspan's managers knew he complained of wrist pain and had occupational health advice recommending a personal wrist or manual-handling assessment, but did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that he was disabled for section 15 Equality Act purposes.

The January-February 2016 disputes about the press brake, roof lights and the claimant's refusal to work certain machinery were found not to amount to disability discrimination, harassment, or health and safety detriment. The tribunal found Kingspan's purpose was to obtain a personal assessment of the claimant's capabilities and to keep him away from work that caused pain, not to penalise him for raising health and safety concerns or disclosures. It held that the claimant's insistence on a general machine risk assessment and his refusal to co-operate with the personal assessment explained the respondent's actions, and the section 44 ERA and whistleblowing detriment claims failed.

The tribunal also rejected the claimant's complaints about the handling of his February and April 2016 grievances, the July 2016 grievance appeal, and the September 2016 correspondence with Mr Bullough. It accepted that some of the claimant's communications amounted to protected disclosures and protected acts, but held that Kingspan investigated conscientiously, proposed meetings and mediation, and did not subject him to detriment or victimisation because of those disclosures or disability-related complaints. It took the same view of the May 2018 emails to the board and to Pam Mulliner.

On holiday pay, the tribunal found the claimant had been paid all pre-dismissal accrued holiday due to him, there was no unauthorised deduction of £1,920, and no unpaid holiday balance was proved. The dismissal claims also failed: the tribunal held that the 18 May 2018 termination was for some other substantial reason, namely an irretrievable breakdown of trust and confidence, that the procedure was fair and within the range of reasonable responses, and that the dismissal was not because of protected disclosures, asserted statutory holiday rights, or disability victimisation. No monetary award was made.