Case 1806414/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Dimaline v Heron Foods Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1806414/2020
- Decision date
- 22 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Miller
- Panel members
- Mr D Crowe, Mr G Wareing
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Dimaline
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr A Dimaline, a warehouse cleaner, brought disability discrimination complaints against Heron Foods Ltd. The tribunal accepted that the respondent knew, or ought reasonably to have known, of his disability from at least 4 October 2018. The claimant’s complaints centred on work allocation with a colleague, Mr Des Price, welfare support arrangements, and a letter dated 25 August 2020 explaining a change in support.
On the reasonable adjustments claim, the tribunal found that there had been a PCP of not always fairly allocating work between the claimant and Mr Price, and that this put the claimant at a substantial disadvantage because he experienced the imbalance as pressure and stress. It found, however, that by 18 March 2020 the respondent had taken steps to address that problem by requiring daily allocation of work through supervisors, and by 31 July 2020 the claimant said things were better and the adjustments were in place. The tribunal rejected the other alleged PCPs, including a requirement to remain in the ambient area and a requirement to continue working without access to a safe space at all times, finding no substantial disadvantage from those matters.
The tribunal also held that any complaint about the unfair allocation of work was out of time. It found the last possible date of discrimination was 30 January 2020, that early conciliation began on 27 August 2020, and that the claim was about six months late. It refused to extend time on a just and equitable basis because no explanation for the delay was given. The reasonable adjustments claim was therefore dismissed.
For harassment, the tribunal considered the 25 August 2020 letter sent by Ms Daniels. It held that the relevant paragraph did relate to disability because it concerned the impact on Mr Morton of supporting the claimant, but it found that the letter’s purpose was to explain the change in welfare support and that its wording was not unacceptable. The tribunal concluded that the letter did not have the purpose or effect required by section 26 Equality Act 2010. The harassment claim was dismissed and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Reasonable adjustments claim dismissed. The tribunal accepted there had been a PCP of not always fairly allocating work between the claimant and Mr Price up to 18 March 2020 and that this caused the claimant disadvantage, but found the respondent had taken steps by then to allocate work daily. It also rejected the asserted PCPs about remaining in the ambient area and needing a safe space at all times, and held the claim was out of time with no just and equitable extension. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Claim based on the 25 August 2020 next steps letter. The tribunal accepted the relevant paragraph related to disability because it concerned the impact of supporting the claimant on Mr Morton, but found the letter was a clear, carefully written and supportive explanation of a change in welfare support and did not amount to harassment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- Equality Act 2010 s.20
- Equality Act 2010 s.21
- Equality Act 2010 s.26
- Equality Act 2010 s.123
- Equality Act 2010 Schedule 8 paragraph 20
- Isola v Transport for London [2020] EWCA Civ 112
- Rutherford v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (No. 2) [2006] UKHL 19
- Secretary of State for the Department of Work and Pensions v Alam [2010] IRLR 283
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal [2009] IRLR 336
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.