Mrs B Kruszelniuk v Addo Food Group Limited Heard: in the Midlands East region — 2022

The tribunal held that the claimant's complaints under sections 20-21 and section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 were out of time. Early Conciliation ran from 6 May 2020 to 28 May 2020 and the claim was presented on 25 June 2020, so alleged discriminatory acts on or before 6 February 2020 were prima facie out of time. The tribunal refused to extend time, noting that the claimant had raised reasonable-adjustment issues by August 2019, had sought legal advice in December 2019, was represented at the disciplinary hearing in February 2020, and had not given a persuasive reason for the delay.

On the disability issue, the respondent accepted that the claimant was disabled by leukaemia from June 2019 onwards, but the tribunal held that she was not disabled between February 2018 and June 2019 by reason of painful and swollen hands, numbness and swelling of the hand joints. It accepted that she had a physical impairment affecting heavy lifting and some activities, but found that the adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities was not substantial.

If the tribunal had had to decide the out-of-time discrimination complaints, it would have found no contravention. It found that the claimant's difficulties with production-line work did not arise in consequence of leukaemia, that there was no unfavourable treatment because of something arising from disability, and that the respondent had in any event discussed and offered lighter duties, Traceability work, administrative work and a day-shift transfer. The direct discrimination claim under section 13 failed because the tribunal found that dismissal was not because of disability.

The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that the reason for dismissal was conduct, namely repeated failure to report alleged accidents and what it regarded as fraudulent behaviour, following an investigation and disciplinary process that it found to be reasonable and procedurally fair. Applying the Burchell test and section 98(4) ERA 1996, it found that the dismissing manager had a genuine and reasonable belief in misconduct and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.