Mr D Patton v Heineken UK Limited — 2023

Mr Patton, a Technician at Heineken UK Limited’s Manchester brewery, had been required to shield because of a disability. During the pandemic the respondent varied its discretionary bonus arrangements, and he received reduced bonuses in August 2020 and February 2021. The tribunal held that the section 15 discrimination arising from disability claim failed because the reduced bonus was not unfavourable treatment in the relevant sense: the scheme had been altered to reward employees who had attended work and contributed during the pandemic, and the claimant’s complaint was in substance that the payment was not generous enough. It further held that, even if section 15 had been engaged, the respondent’s aim was legitimate and the approach proportionate.

The reasonable adjustments claim also failed. The tribunal accepted that the respondent had applied a provision, criterion or practice by varying the bonus scheme, that the PCP applied to the claimant and to non-disabled colleagues, and that those who had to shield were at a substantial disadvantage. It nevertheless held that paying the claimant the same bonus as colleagues who had attended work throughout would not have been a reasonable adjustment, for the same reasons as those that supported proportionality under section 15. The H2 bonus aspect of the EqA claims was allowed to proceed out of time on a just and equitable basis.

The unlawful deduction from wages claim was dismissed. The tribunal found that the bonus scheme was discretionary and non-contractual, so the claimant had no contractual entitlement to the higher sums he sought. In relation to the February 2021 bonus, it also held that the claim was out of time under section 23 ERA 1996 and that it was reasonably practicable for him to have brought it within time.

The only successful claim was harassment related to disability. The tribunal found that, in the informal grievance meeting on 27 August 2020, Mr Goodwin said to the claimant words to the effect of 'you didn’t have to shield, it was a choice' and 'if you’re not happy sue the Government'. It held that the first comment was related to disability, that the comments had the effect of creating an offensive environment, and that it was reasonable for them to have that effect in the circumstances. The tribunal awarded £1,000 for injury to feelings and £202.52 interest, making a total award of £1,202.52.