Mr J Coote v Britelec Network Services Ltd and 1 other — 2019

Mr J Coote worked for Britelec Network Services Ltd from July 2017 under a tripartite apprenticeship arrangement, but the tribunal accepted that he was a disabled person by reason of dyslexia. It found that he told Mr Richard Tuff about his dyslexia only around 26 August 2017, when coping strategies for cable numbering were discussed, and it noted that the protected-disclosure detriment claim, the s.104 automatic unfair dismissal claim, and the mileage claim were later withdrawn and recorded as dismissed on withdrawal.

The disability discrimination claims failed. The tribunal rejected the allegation that vehicle running costs and a fuel card were withheld because of disability, finding that fuel cards were only for company vehicles and that the Claimant could not be insured on the van. It also rejected the allegations of excessive-hours pressure, abusive language, and disability-related detriment on 19 September 2017, 8 October 2017, 18 January 2018, and 22 January 2018, preferring Mr Tuff's evidence and the contemporaneous records and concluding that the disputes were about work performance, timesheets, site instructions, and the Claimant's conduct rather than dyslexia.

The reasonable-adjustments claim also failed. The tribunal accepted that PCP1, requiring staff to identify numbering on cables, placed the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage, but found that the problem had been addressed in August 2017 and did not explain the later performance concerns. It did not accept PCP2 as a proven practice, found PCP3 did not place him at a substantial disadvantage because the spreadsheet could be enlarged and he had not asked for help, and concluded that the Respondent did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that further adjustments were required at the material time.

On contract status, the tribunal held that the relationship was a contract of employment rather than a contract of apprenticeship because the principal purpose was work, the training period was short, there was no defined training agenda, and the contractual intention pointed to employment. If that conclusion was wrong, it found that the Claimant's conduct on 22 January 2018 was repudiatory and that the apprenticeship could in any event have been ended. The wrongful dismissal claim therefore failed. The Claimant succeeded only on the tools deduction of £163.95, accrued holiday pay of £63.86, and the section 38 Employment Act 2002 award of £975.00, and the tribunal added a 25% uplift of £300.70, producing a total award of £1,503.51.