In person. For the v Respondent — 2021

The claimant was employed as a meter operative from 28 September 2009. The respondent accepted that he had generalised anxiety disorder, but the tribunal found that the events of 6 June 2019 were a deliberate choice by the claimant rather than conduct caused by disability. During a work-in-progress audit of an electric meter exchange, Mr Money observed that the claimant did not complete the required polarity and dead tests, did not wear PPE, and did not stop work when a Category B07 issue arose. The claimant accepted the non-compliances and said he had deliberately failed to follow procedure in order to test Mr Money's skills and ability.

On the s.15 Equality Act claim, the tribunal accepted that dismissal was unfavourable treatment but held that the behaviour did not arise in consequence of the claimant's disability. It relied on the claimant's own account that he had acted deliberately, and found no medical evidence showing that his disability caused him to act recklessly. The tribunal therefore held that the discrimination claim was not well founded. It added that, even if it had been wrong on causation, dismissal would have been a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims, including safety of personnel and the public and the respondent's commercial interests.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that conduct was the reason for dismissal and that the respondent had a genuine belief based on a reasonable investigation. It noted that the claimant was invited to investigation and disciplinary meetings, was accompanied by a trade union representative, was given the chance to advance mitigation and medical evidence, and that the respondent adjourned to obtain occupational health input before deciding. Mr Hill concluded that the claimant had committed serious and deliberate breaches of the safe system of work and that this amounted to gross misconduct. The tribunal held that the dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses and rejected the claimant's argument that he had been treated inconsistently with Mr Horton, because Mr Horton's case concerned capability rather than deliberate misconduct.