Olaf Olenski v University of Essex Campus Services Ltd — 2022

Olaf Olenski started work for University of Essex Campus Services Ltd as a catering supervisor on 27 February 2019. The respondent conceded in February 2022 that he was disabled by reason of depression, and the tribunal accepted that the respondent had notice of that disability from 8 April 2019 when he told Ms Attwood. The tribunal found shortcomings in the early training and mentoring provided at Buffalo Joe's, but it also found that the claimant was introduced to colleagues who acted as supervisors and mentors, and that the respondent's induction approach was informal rather than structured.

The disability harassment complaints were struck out under rule 37 because the tribunal considered they had no reasonable prospect of success. The section 15 complaints also failed. The tribunal held that the July 2019 shift change to Canteen was not treatment arising from disability and was not unfavourable in the statutory sense, and that Darren Tyers' brief contact at Harwich Medical Rehabilitation Unit in August 2019 was a coincidental encounter rather than contrived conduct.

On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal accepted that some of the claimant's complaints identified PCPs and disadvantages, but several failed on time limits, knowledge, or because no PCP was established. It held that the early training complaint would have justified a pressure-free shadowing arrangement, but the claim was out of time and no just and equitable extension was granted. It dismissed the claims based on six consecutive working days, not receiving two consecutive days off, the Easter 2019 rostering complaints, the 12 July 2019 meeting without notice, the written probation extension, the appointment of UECS managers to hear the cases, the Library Assistant interview, and the Student Welfare role criteria. In relation to the 19 November 2019 investigation meeting, the tribunal was critical of how it was conducted but held it was a one-off act rather than a PCP.

Two reasonable-adjustment claims succeeded. The tribunal held that the respondent should not have progressed the disciplinary process before concluding the grievance, because occupational health had said timely grievance resolution was important and the grievance outcome could have affected the disciplinary process. It also held that ending employment without a further probation extension was a failure to make reasonable adjustments: by 23 October 2019 it was clear that a return to Essex Food was not viable, and the tribunal considered it artificial to continue a probation review for the substantive role instead of considering redeployment to a suitable available role. A remedy hearing was listed for 6 and 7 July 2022, so no compensation figure was determined in this judgment.