Mr. Przemyslaw Czubak v Marelli Automotive Systems UK Ltd. — 2024

The tribunal accepted that Mr Czubak had an underactive thyroid and insulin resistance and that the respondent knew of those conditions from the occupational health report received on 17 May 2022, but not before that date. It also recorded that the respondent accepted the conditions were disabilities within section 6 EqA 2010. The claimant's 2018 allegations centred on occupational health meetings linked to a proposed transfer to Nissan CPM, and the tribunal found the factual context was stress and anxiety about that proposed transfer rather than any thyroid-related workplace issue.

On the 2 and 18 July 2018 occupational health matters, the tribunal rejected the claimant's case that Nurse Dawn Mee or the respondent omitted health information at the respondent's direction. It found no evidential basis for an arrangement between the respondent and its occupational health provider, and it held that the claimant's references to his thyroid were sparse in the contemporaneous notes. The tribunal found the occupational health referrals were properly focused on stress and anxiety, that Mr Harrison had encouraged the claimant to explain all of his medical issues to occupational health, and that there was no need at that stage to ask about permanent adjustments or whether work was a contributory factor because the referral was not about the thyroid condition.

For the 2022 allegations about Mr Baillie, the tribunal found that most of the alleged walking-speed and toilet-break comments were not proved. It accepted only one remark, that the claimant was first to go for a break and last to come back, but found that this was an ordinary workplace comment about break timing and not race or disability related. The tribunal also found that there was no PCP limiting toilet breaks, that the claimant was never refused a toilet break, and that the evidence did not show any substantial disadvantage or any refusal of reasonable adjustments. The February 2022 PADR concerns about tact time were found to be genuine performance concerns, and the tribunal accepted Mr Baillie's evidence that his comments were made because he believed they were warranted.

The Radio Incident on 15 March 2022 was treated as central to the later grievance. The tribunal found Mr Baillie had seen the claimant walk away from the line shortly after a quality concern involving Mr Hughes, and that he used the radio to tell Mr Collins to pass on an instruction that the claimant should not leave the line before completing the part. It rejected the claimant's account that he was told to shut up, that he was singled out because he was Polish, or that the incident involved a threat of transfer to Nissan CPM. The tribunal accepted that the CCTV policy in force on that date was out of date and that Mr Baillie's use of CCTV and the radio breached internal policy, but it found the breach affected all employees equally and did not found any Equality Act liability or data protection jurisdiction for the tribunal.