In person For the v Respondent — 2021

The claimant had worked for the respondent and its predecessors since 1998 and was employed as a Diet Chef at Charing Cross Hospital. He brought a disability discrimination claim based on depression, arguing that the respondent should have made reasonable adjustments to his workload and working arrangements. The tribunal found that the respondent did not know and could not reasonably have known that he was disabled by reason of depression: he had not told his line manager about a diagnosis or medication, his medical certificates did not refer to depression, and the tribunal did not regard isolated comments or references to stress as enough to establish knowledge.

On the dismissal facts, the tribunal found that the claimant knew food stored in the Diet Bay fridge had to be labelled for food safety reasons and that unlabelled fish should have been removed when he returned from leave. It rejected his case that he had no time because of workload, relying in part on the earlier shadowing exercise and concluding that his difficulties were also connected to his organisation. The tribunal held that his conduct amounted to gross misconduct and a repudiatory breach of contract, so the wrongful dismissal claim failed.

The tribunal accepted that misconduct was the reason for dismissal and found that much of the disciplinary process complied with the Acas Code, but it held the dismissal unfair for two procedural reasons. First, the investigation did not properly explore the claimant's repeated assertions that he needed help in the Diet Bay and had insufficient time to complete the work. Second, the appeal was not heard after the union appeal said the sanction was too harsh. Applying Polkey, the tribunal found the respondent would probably have been in a position to fairly dismiss the claimant about a week later, so any compensatory loss was limited to that period.

For remedy, the tribunal reduced the compensatory award by 100% for contributory conduct, made no reduction to the basic award under section 122(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and applied a 15% uplift for the respondent's failure to comply fully with the Acas Code. The extracted text records those remedy adjustments, but it does not state the underlying monetary figures.