Case 1600951/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Pitts v Rural Retreats & Leisure Ltd — 2018
- Case reference
- 1600951/2017
- Decision date
- 6 September 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Pitts
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge T. Vincent Ryan found that Mr A Pitts's wrongly labelled indirect disability discrimination complaint was to be treated as a claim under section 15 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal upheld the disability discrimination claims: it found that Rural Retreats & Leisure Ltd directly discriminated by dismissing him because of disability, that it treated him unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of disability when it reduced his hours and required him to accept a revised contract in March 2017, and that it failed to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments in relation to duties subject to imposed time constraints and expectations.
The tribunal also found that Mr Pitts was unfairly dismissed on 9 August 2017, that the respondent failed to pay holiday pay due on termination, and that it failed to comply with an applicable code of practice in relation to the dismissal. The code-of-practice failure resulted in a 25% uplift to the unfair dismissal award. It also accepted the claimant's breach of contract claim for notice pay, finding that he was entitled to 12 weeks' statutory notice.
The award totalled £27,907.42. This comprised a basic award of £4,334 and a compensatory award of £13,162.98 for unfair dismissal before the 25% uplift of £3,290.75, bringing that head to £16,453.73. The tribunal also awarded £2,304 for notice pay, £8,500 for injury to feelings plus £457.69 interest on the disability discrimination claim, and £192 for five days' net holiday pay. Recoupment provisions applied to the period 9 August 2017 to 4 April 2018.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissal found unfair on 9 August 2017; the unfair dismissal award included a 25% uplift for failure to comply with an applicable code of practice. | Upheld | — | £16,454 |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination: the tribunal found the respondent directly discriminated by dismissing the claimant because of disability. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claim originally labelled indirect disability discrimination (s.19 Equality Act 2010) was amended to discrimination arising from disability under s.15; it concerned reduction of hours and a requirement to accept a revised contract in March 2017. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments in respect of requirements to perform certain duties subject to imposed time constraints and expectations. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim; the tribunal found the claimant was entitled to 12 weeks' statutory notice. | Upheld | — | £2,304 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay due on termination; awarded as 5 days' net pay. | Upheld | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £27,907
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £4,334
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £13,163
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.19 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- statutory duty to make reasonable adjustments
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.