Joshua Aderemi v Hesley Group Limited Heard: in Sheffield on 8,9,10,11 and, in chambers, on 12 September 2025 — 2025

At the start of the final hearing the claimant sought to add complaints of harassment and victimisation, but the tribunal refused leave to amend. It applied the Selkent guidance and Vaughan v Modality Partnership, noting that the proposed claims were new, substantially out of time, and would require additional factual enquiry and likely further witnesses. The case therefore proceeded only on the issues already identified at case management: health and safety detriment, disability reasonable adjustments, and direct race discrimination.

On the health and safety claim, the tribunal accepted that the claimant raised concerns about working with DR in late January 2024, again in his grievance of 12 June 2024, and during the probationary review on 13 June 2024. It also accepted that he had no practical route through the health and safety committee because there was no dedicated night-worker representative and the committee was largely made up of managers. However, it held that his belief that working with DR was harmful or potentially harmful to health and safety was not reasonable. The claimant had latent, asymptomatic TB, was not under treatment or medical supervision, and Occupational Health reported that he was fit for work in full capacity. The tribunal found that the alleged detriments at the 28 June 2024 supervision meeting were not made out and were not caused by any protected disclosure, so the complaint under sections 44 and 48 ERA 1996 was dismissed.

On disability, the tribunal found that the claimant was not disabled within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010. It held that the latent TB diagnosis, described in the evidence as borderline positive and asymptomatic, did not amount to an impairment on the evidence before it. In any event, it found no substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities: the claimant’s evidence was limited to occasional spitting to clear phlegm after long walks and avoiding some cold food or cold weather, and there was no medical supervision, treatment, or disability impact statement. The reasonable adjustments complaint therefore failed because the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it.

On direct race discrimination, the tribunal rejected each of the six allegations. It found there had been no delay in processing the claimant's NVQ, no requirement that he work with DR on 9 April 2024 in circumstances amounting to race discrimination, no threat by Mr Wordsworth that his job opportunities would be limited, and no racial basis for Mr Redenica's comment about whether this was the best job for him. It also found that Tracey McKay did not threaten to report the claimant to the Home Office on 21 June 2024, and that Mr Wordsworth did not do so on 28 June 2024. The tribunal accepted the respondent's non-discriminatory explanations, held that the claimant had not established facts from which discrimination could be inferred, and dismissed the race discrimination complaint. Because all claims failed, the tribunal did not go on to consider remedy.