Mr I Stanley v The Village Bakery (Wrexham) Limited — 2024

The Claimant was severely sight impaired and registered blind. He started work as a night shift production operative on 17 July 2023 on a three-month probationary period. The tribunal found that the Respondent knew, or ought to have known, of both the disability and the substantial disadvantage arising from it because the Claimant had disclosed visual impairment on the first day, and his difficulties with moving around the factory, reading the thermometer, and working at pace became apparent within the first few weeks.

On the reasonable-adjustments claim, the tribunal identified PCPs requiring production operatives to work to speed and accuracy standards, operate trolleys, read bread temperatures with a thermometer, and be subject to probationary termination if standards were not met. It found that the Claimant was substantially disadvantaged compared with a non-disabled probationary employee because he needed longer to learn the layout and tasks, could not see the thermometer easily, and was more likely to struggle with manoeuvring trolleys in the unfamiliar environment. It upheld the complaint in relation to giving the Claimant longer to adjust, providing a support worker, telling colleagues about his sight impairment, and giving him Hi-Viz clothing.

The tribunal dismissed the remaining reasonable-adjustment complaints. It found that clear pathways for bread trays would not have been a reasonable step in a busy bakery, that priority for moving trolleys was already in place, and that the slicing/packing points were not PCPs applied to the Claimant because he was not required to undertake those roles in the way alleged.

On the s.15 claim, the tribunal found that the Claimant was unfavourably treated when Tom Breeze terminated his employment on 22 August 2023, with notice to 30 August 2023. It found that the effective reason was that he was not working to the required standard, and that this inability at week 6 arose in consequence of his disability. Although the Respondent relied on efficient production, cost, and health and safety as legitimate aims, the tribunal was not persuaded that the dismissal was proportionate, particularly because the Respondent had failed to make reasonable adjustments that would have given the Claimant a chance to remain in employment. Liability was decided only; remedy was to be determined at a later hearing.