Michael Bradley v Russell Parker Foods Limited — 2022

The claimant, Michael Bradley, worked as a slaughterman on the Gut Line and was dismissed after an incident on 24 September 2020 in which he poured hot water from a latex glove over a colleague, JP, following an exchange of words and a delay before his reaction. The respondent investigated the incident, took witness statements, reviewed CCTV, held a disciplinary hearing on 2 October 2020, and then dismissed him for gross misconduct. The claimant appealed and first disclosed his Asperger's diagnosis in his appeal letter dated 9 October 2020; the appeal was heard by Dale Williams on 16 October 2020 and was unsuccessful.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal found that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had committed misconduct and had reasonable grounds for that belief, including the claimant's own admission, the CCTV footage, witness evidence, and the investigation into the water temperature. It held that the investigation and procedure were fair overall, despite the disciplinary invite not expressly stating that dismissal could result, the refusal to provide a copy of the CCTV for off-site viewing, the short length of the hearing, and the absence of notes of the decision-making deliberation. The tribunal also rejected allegations of bias and inconsistency, including the comparison with JP and the claimant's earlier 2014 disciplinary matter, and concluded that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.

On the disability claim under s.15 Equality Act 2010, the tribunal found that the claimant was disabled by reason of Asperger's at the relevant time. However, it found that the respondent did not actually know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that he had the disability at the time of dismissal or appeal, notwithstanding the disclosure in the appeal letter and discussion at appeal. The tribunal further held that, even if knowledge had been established, the claimant had not proved that the alleged unfavourable treatment - treating his lack of remorse and timing of retaliation as negative factors - arose in consequence of his disability, because the evidence showed he said he spent time thinking about how to get JP back rather than processing emotions or being unable to express remorse verbally. The discrimination arising from disability claim was therefore dismissed.