In person For the v Respondent — 2024

Mr Ziga worked for Anglian Windows as a factory operative from 2014. The tribunal accepted that he was disabled by reason of depression and anxiety from 3 April 2020, and the respondent also conceded disability by reason of psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis. The evidence showed that he had been working reduced 10-hour night shifts following occupational health advice and fit notes, with longer hours said to affect his mood, sleep and joints.

The tribunal found that the respondent had a PCP requiring employees to work 12-hour shifts and that, for this claimant, the PCP placed him at a substantial disadvantage. It held that the respondent knew or ought to have known of his disability and disadvantage. Although the respondent had previously allowed the reduced shift, it withdrew that arrangement on 26 November 2020 and told him that from 30 November 2020 he must work the full shift or remain off work. The tribunal held that for 1 to 4 December 2020 the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments, because it would have been reasonable to continue the 10-hour arrangement pending updated occupational health information. That was the only successful complaint, and the remedy was left to a later hearing listed for 6 December 2024.

The discrimination arising from disability claim failed because the tribunal held that asking the claimant to work his contractual hours was not unfavourable treatment. Even if it were, the reason for that request was contractual and business need, not something arising in consequence of disability. The direct discrimination claim also failed: on the 28 April 2022 incident with Mr Shaun Ream, the tribunal preferred Mr Ream's account, found no facts from which it could infer treatment because of disability, and accepted that the later grievance handling and disciplinary process were driven by the incident and the claimant's conduct rather than disability.

The victimisation claim failed. The tribunal accepted that the 29 November 2020 grievance and the first tribunal claim were protected acts, but found that the delay in dealing with the grievance was not a detriment and that the grievance outcome and later disciplinary proceedings were not because of those protected acts. The unfair dismissal claim also failed. Applying the Burchell approach and s.98(4) ERA 1996, the tribunal found that the respondent genuinely believed the misconduct allegations, had reasonable grounds and carried out a reasonable investigation, and that dismissing the claimant in his absence after repeated postponements was within the range of reasonable responses.