Mr C Mackay v Pyramid Display Materials Limited — 2024

The tribunal held that Mr C Mackay was unfairly dismissed by Pyramid Display Materials Limited. It accepted that the respondent relied on SOSR, described as an irretrievable breakdown in relations, and found that Mr Doherty made the final dismissal decision after discussion with others. However, the process was unfair: the claimant was not given a genuine opportunity to answer the proposed dismissal, alternatives to dismissal were not properly explored, and no appeal was offered. The tribunal also treated the dismissal as outside the band of reasonable responses, taking account of the way the grievance history had been handled and the fact that some earlier grievances had been upheld or addressed only informally.

On disability, the tribunal found that the claimant had disabilities at the relevant time of depression, insomnia, stress and OCD, but not anxiety. It rejected the section 15 claim because the April 2021 instruction to leave the workplace by 5pm was not unfavourable treatment, and it found that the dismissal was not because of sickness absence or slow pace. The tribunal also rejected the reasonable adjustments claim: it did not accept that there was a PCP of requiring a heavy workload or over 100 accounts, and although it accepted that working in the office was a PCP, it found no substantial disadvantage was shown for depression, stress or insomnia. As to OCD, the tribunal found the respondent knew the claimant had OCD, but the evidence did not show that the respondent knew or ought reasonably to have known that office attendance placed him at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with people without that condition.

The harassment complaints were dismissed. The tribunal preferred Ms Bradley's evidence on the disputed sexual-orientation allegations and found that most of the pleaded incidents were not proved or were not related to sexual orientation or disability. It found one allegation proved, namely that Ms Wild asked the claimant to bring antidepressants to work to show what he was taking, and it accepted that this related to disability; however, the claimant had not been upset or offended by the request and the tribunal did not find the necessary unwanted conduct, purpose or effect for harassment. The victimisation claim also failed: the tribunal accepted that the 7 September 2020 grievance and the ET claim were protected acts, but it did not find that the alleged disclosure to clients, the suspension, or the handling of documents at the grievance hearing were materially influenced by those acts. Remedy was not determined in this judgment and was left to a later hearing.