Mr G Grayling v Wolseley UK Limited and 3 others — 2021

The claimant had worked for Wolseley UK Limited since 1989 and was a Branch Manager, latterly at Walthamstow. The tribunal accepted that he was disabled, with hearing difficulties, a knee injury and dyslexia, and it recorded occupational health reports, Access to Work involvement and a series of welfare meetings about his ability to continue in his role. The claim against the Third Respondent was withdrawn at the hearing; the tribunal then went on to dismiss the remaining complaints.

On the direct discrimination and harassment allegations, the tribunal accepted that Mr Johnson and Mr Goodchild sometimes made remarks about the claimant's hearing, but it found those remarks were made in the context of longstanding friendships in which joking was part of the relationship. It rejected the allegation that the comments were made because of disability, and it rejected the separate allegation concerning a 29 May 2019 visit to the branch. For harassment, the tribunal accepted that comments became unwanted only later in the employment relationship, but held that they still did not meet the statutory threshold in the circumstances of the case.

On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal accepted that the claimant's work involved PCPs including telephone use, face-to-face customer contact, stairs and a limited sick-pay policy, and it accepted that those PCPs placed him at a substantial disadvantage and were known to the employer. It nevertheless held that the claimant could not continue in the Walthamstow role with a materially reduced customer-facing element, and that it was not reasonable to require Wolseley to move him to Barking, give him a trial in Barking, redeploy him to another contract branch, extend contractual sick pay, or delay dismissal. The tribunal also rejected the later suggestion that a Sidcup debt role could be adapted for him.

The tribunal found that the 13 August 2019 dismissal was unfavourable treatment for the purposes of s.15 EqA 2010 because it flowed from the effects of the claimant's disability, but it held that the respondent had a legitimate aim of running Walthamstow efficiently with a permanent manager and that dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving that aim. It also found that the dismissal was for capability under the Employment Rights Act 1996, that the investigation and consultation were fair, and that the decision fell within the band of reasonable responses. No compensation or other remedy was awarded because all claims were dismissed.