Mr R Heyworth v Vantec Europe Limited — 2021

The tribunal accepted that Mr Heyworth was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 and that he had worked for Vantec Europe Limited as an HGV driver since 2002. It preferred the respondent's witnesses and documentary evidence, describing that evidence as clear, reliable and consistent. The tribunal found that the claimant had been absent after shoulder surgery from January 2018, had occupational health input, and had been reviewed against the respondent's attendance and capability procedures.

On the constructive dismissal claim, the tribunal rejected the alleged breaches relied on by the claimant. It found that vacancies for alternative work were identified for him, that occupational health was arranged promptly, that sending him home on 18 December 2018 after he could not safely ingress and egress the vehicle was an obvious and proper step, and that the grievance raised on 21 January 2019 was handled in a timely way through a pre-meeting on 11 February, letters on 15 and 25 February, and an invitation to pursue a formal grievance hearing. It also found there was no promise that a capability hearing would produce a final outcome on that day, and no repudiatory breach of trust and confidence.

The disability discrimination claims also failed. For direct discrimination, the tribunal found the relevant comparator would also have been sent home if unable to perform the HGV role safely. For the section 15 claim, it held that sending the claimant home was unfavourable treatment arising from disability but was justified as a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of preventing injury to the claimant and possibly others.

The reasonable adjustments claim failed because the tribunal found the respondent had taken reasonable steps in the circumstances: it obtained medical reports from the claimant's GP, surgeon, occupational health nurse and Dr Black, asked the claimant on repeated occasions for suggestions about other work, and identified vacancies that he did not pursue. The unlawful deduction from wages claim also failed because the tribunal found he was not entitled to any further pay after 18 December 2018 apart from holiday pay and the agreed payments for 7 and 8 January 2019, which had already been made. No monetary award was made.