Case 1600701/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Krystyna Niedzielska v Faccenda Foods Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600701/2019
- Decision date
- 15 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Havard
- Panel members
- Mr R Mead, Mr C Stephenson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Krystyna Niedzielska
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Niedzielska worked for Faccenda Foods Limited from 2 April 2013 as a production operative. The respondent accepted that she was disabled at the material time by a condition affecting her feet. The tribunal found that from 31 July 2018 she was absent on successive GP fit notes and occupational health reports, and that those materials consistently stated she was not fit for work. On that evidence, and after a medical capability hearing on 9 April 2019, the respondent dismissed her on capability grounds.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed on the basis that the reason for dismissal was capability (ill health) arising from long-term absence and the tribunal found the dismissal fair under s.98 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 EqA 2010 claim for discrimination arising from disability, based on dismissal because of sickness absence; dismissed because the respondent showed a legitimate aim and proportionality. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments under ss.20 and 21 EqA 2010, including alleged PCPs about footwear and returning to the same role/conditions; dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.15 EqA 2010
- s.20-21 EqA 2010
- s.136 EqA 2010
- Basildon & Thurrock NHS Foundation Trust v Weerasinghe
- Igen v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International Plc
- Smith v Churchill's Stairlifts plc
- Holmes v Qinetiq Ltd
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.