Mr. N. Beckett v Industrial Site Maintenance Ltd FINAL HEARING — 2022

At the final hearing on 4 May 2022, the tribunal heard that Mr Beckett had initially brought claims of unfair dismissal, race discrimination, disability discrimination, sex discrimination and holiday pay. Holiday pay had already been withdrawn, and at the January 2022 case management hearing the claimant confirmed that the unfair dismissal, race discrimination and sex discrimination claims were also withdrawn; those claims were formally dismissed on withdrawal. The only claim that proceeded to a full hearing was discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010.

The tribunal found that Mr Beckett was disabled only by reason of a left shoulder injury, not by reason of his ankle injury. It accepted that he had ankle injuries in January and June 2019, and found that he was taken off recycling duties and placed on light or alternative duties solely because of the ankle injury. The Workplace Adjustment Plan referred only to the ankle, and the tribunal rejected the claimant's case that the adjustments were made because of his shoulder. It also found that he had multiple opportunities to mention the shoulder injury later in 2019, but did not do so.

On the section 15 issues, the tribunal held that the relevant 'something' did not arise in consequence of disability because the treatment complained of was connected to the ankle injury, not the shoulder disability. It also found no unfavourable treatment in relation to sick pay or the use of holiday: the claimant's contractual entitlement was SSP after the fourth day of absence unless the respondent exercised discretion, and the tribunal found that taking the time off as holiday was the claimant's own choice. The tribunal accepted that he was effectively denied access to proper advisors at the disciplinary hearing, but found no link between that complaint and the earlier decision to move him off recycling duties. The disability discrimination claim was therefore dismissed.

The tribunal nevertheless recorded that the disciplinary process was flawed in significant respects, including insufficient notice to arrange a suitable representative and the presence of Mr Tate as note-taker when he was also the complainant. It said those failings added to the claimant's sense of injustice, but they did not establish the section 15 claim.