Mr A Strong v Parker Hannafin Manufacturing Ltd — 2023

The tribunal accepted that Mr Strong was disabled by reason of autism spectrum disorder and that the respondent knew of his disability. It found that the relevant PCPs were requiring him to work different shift patterns and different workstations within Value Stream 1, but not a requirement to work different Value Streams, because that was not in fact applied to him. The claim therefore turned on whether those PCPs put him at a substantial disadvantage and whether the respondent knew, or ought reasonably to have known, of that disadvantage.

On the reasonable adjustments complaint, the tribunal held that Mr Strong had not shown that shift changes or workstation changes caused him the substantial disadvantage he alleged, such as meltdown, shutdown, mental trauma or distress. It noted the absence of any explanation of those effects in his witness statement, the fact that he had worked on the two-shift pattern for many years without complaint, and that the medical material emphasised difficulty with unexpected change rather than change itself. It also relied on the fact that his role as a Unite representative involved dealing with short-notice and changing demands, and that the employer had engaged with him extensively over many meetings without being told that the two-shift pattern or occasional workstation changes caused the claimed disability-related disadvantage.

The auxiliary aid complaint also failed. The tribunal found that the evidence did not show that the absence of noise-cancelling headphones with audio input placed him at the disadvantage alleged. It accepted that the respondent had already agreed to provide noise-cancelling headphones, a safe space, and other supports, and found that allowing headphones which played audio would present a high safety risk in the production environment. The tribunal concluded that the proposed aid was not a reasonable step to have to take, and that the complaint under ss.20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 was not well founded.

The flexible working complaint was dismissed for a separate reason. Mr Strong made a compliant flexible working request on 1 March 2023, but at a meeting on 18 May 2023 he asked to stop that request and deal with his needs through reasonable adjustments instead. The tribunal held that, under s.80F(4) ERA 1996 as it then stood, he could not make a further application to the same employer within twelve months, so the later request made on 26 October 2023 was not one that engaged the employer's duty under s.80G to notify a decision within the decision period. No award was made.