Mr A Kouzibri v East London Bus & Coach Company Ltd — 2024

The claimant worked for the respondent as a bus driver from 2009. The tribunal accepted that his visual impairment, vitreous opacities and later eye fatigue caused blurred vision, headaches and difficulty reading, watching television and driving. It held that he became disabled on 3 January 2019, when he was diagnosed with secondary ocular hypertension and began lifelong medication, and that the respondent knew of the disability by November 2019 after Occupational Health reported eye fatigue and the claimant repeatedly raised his symptoms with Mr White.

The reasonable adjustments claim failed. The tribunal held that redeployment into a non-driving role was not a reasonable adjustment in 2018 and 2019 because the medical evidence at the time indicated that he would return to bus driving after surgery, the respondent was a bus company with very limited non-driving vacancies, and several apparently non-driving roles still required a PCV licence. By June 2021 the claimant’s eyesight had worsened, but the tribunal found it was still reasonable for the respondent to wait until there was confirmation that he could not drive buses permanently. In February 2022 the respondent had started that process by obtaining vacancies, checking which roles required driving, and identifying a possible part-time engineering role.

On the duty to end shifts no later than 4pm, the tribunal found that the respondent had mostly accommodated the claimant after late 2019 by placing him on earlier duties. Later shifts were infrequent, were dealt with when raised, and were explained by rota logistics and the claimant’s preference to stay on one shorter route. On the section 15 claims, the tribunal accepted that the relevant something was the claimant’s impaired ability to drive a bus, but it held that the respondent’s refusal to redeploy earlier was driven by the absence of confirmation that he could not drive permanently, not by the impairment itself. It also rejected the harassment allegations, including the complaint about the 7 February 2022 meeting, finding that Mr White did not threaten the claimant or blame him for being absent for more than 100 days; he warned him of the risk of dismissal and referred to the absence as context.

The constructive unfair dismissal claim also failed. The tribunal held there was no repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence: the respondent was not obliged to seek redeployment earlier, the shift adjustments were largely made, and the February 2022 warning about dismissal was a proper part of managing capability and absence. The claimant resigned on 24 February 2022 while redeployment discussions and the vacancy process were ongoing, so he was not constructively dismissed and no monetary award was made.