Case 2601596/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Nowicki v Clipper Logistics plc — 2019
- Case reference
- 2601596/2018
- Decision date
- 20 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Blackwell Members
- Venue
- Nottingham
- Panel members
- Mrs C Brown, Mr P Jackson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Nowicki
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Nowicki began work with Clipper in November 2015 and later transferred to the Duke warehouse at Burton-on-Trent. The tribunal accepted that his son was disabled by reason of autism. It also found that Clipper accommodated Mr Nowicki’s fit notes for plantar fasciitis, granted flexible working in February 2017, and later dealt with occupational health issues arising in 2018.
The direct disability discrimination claim and the harassment claim both failed. On the training allegations, the tribunal accepted that Mr Nowicki was not trained on DNA trucks and was not trained for an admin role, but found no less favourable treatment because there was no actual or hypothetical comparator and the admin work required a full 12-hour shift for continuity reasons. On the March 2018 night shift, the tribunal accepted that Mr Nowicki believed he had been threatened with dismissal, but found that the notes and oral evidence did not support that conclusion and that Mr Baker and Mr Ludlow were seeking a workable way forward rather than forcing him out.
The tribunal also rejected the allegations that Mr Nowicki had been singled out by managers, including the shoe checks, break monitoring, the 9 July incident involving Mr Zoltan, and the allegation that false facts were given to occupational health. It found Mr Baker’s evidence credible on the safety shoe issue, accepted that the occupational health referral was objective, and held that the criticism of the report was a disagreement with opinion rather than proof of falsity. Applying section 26, the tribunal held that Mr Nowicki’s perception of bullying did not make the conduct harassment on the facts found.
The unlawful deduction from wages claim succeeded in the sum of £155.54 gross. The tribunal found that Mr Nowicki’s own calculation was unclear and that the respondent’s records pointed to a different figure, but after concluding there had been no written agreement to the pay change it accepted Clipper’s revised position and ordered payment of £155.54.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The claim was pleaded as direct disability discrimination by association with Mr Nowicki’s son. The tribunal accepted that his son was disabled by reason of autism, but found no less favourable treatment, no comparator, and no factual basis for an inference of discrimination. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The harassment allegations covered the March 2018 exchange with Mr Baker and Mr Ludlow, alleged singling out, shoe checks, break monitoring, the 9 July incident, and the occupational health referral/report. The tribunal applied section 26 and found the conduct was not reasonably capable of having the alleged effect. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant’s own wage calculation was not clear. The tribunal ultimately accepted Clipper’s calculation and ordered payment of £155.54 gross after finding there had been no written agreement to the change in the way he was paid. | Upheld | — | £156 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £156
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.