Case 3303544/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Maye v Reading Borough Council — 2019
- Case reference
- 3303544/2018
- Decision date
- 3 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Maye
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a public preliminary hearing to decide whether Mr C Maye was disabled within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 by reason of Hand-Arm Vibration Syndrome. The respondent had already conceded disability by reference to six other conditions, but not HAVS. The tribunal did not determine the merits of the pleaded disability discrimination, unfair dismissal or arrears of pay complaints.
The tribunal found that the claimant had worked in the respondent's Highways department from 7 January 1987 and used vibrating tools and machinery. He was diagnosed with mild HAVS by Dr D'Souza on 16 January 2012. After that diagnosis he was moved in about March 2012 to drainage and sewers work which did not require use of vibrating tools. His HAVS symptoms later settled apart from continuing mild difficulties opening some bottles and tins, which the tribunal found were more likely than not symptoms of HAVS.
The tribunal held that HAVS was a physical impairment with fluctuating or recurring effects. Opening bottles and tins was a normal day-to-day activity, but the claimant's difficulty with that activity was not in itself substantial. However, HAVS was treated as substantial because it was a progressive condition and could well result in a substantial adverse effect in the future.
The tribunal also found that the relevant work-related activity was broadly 'digging', not simply 'using vibrating equipment'. Digging was held to be a normal day-to-day activity in the context of work. By reason of HAVS and medical advice, the respondent decided that the claimant should no longer use vibrating tools, and that inability substantially hindered his participation in working life because his skills were in manual work typically involving tools and machinery that vibrated. The effect began in March 2012 and continued at least until Dr Cordell's advice on 4 October 2017, so it was long-term. The tribunal concluded that the claimant was disabled for the purpose of section 6 by virtue of HAVS at the material times.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal determined that the claimant was disabled by reason of Hand-Arm Vibration Syndrome at the material times. The merits of the disability discrimination, unfair dismissal and arrears of pay complaints were not determined in this judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- Guidance on matters to be taken into account in determining questions relating to the definition of disability
- Chief Constable of Lothian and Borders Police v Cumming
- Banaszczyk v Booker Ltd
- Chacon Navas v Eurest Colectividades SA
- HK Danmark acting on behalf of Ring v Dansk Almennyttigt Boligselskab
- Chief Constable of Norfolk v Coffey
- Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust v Norris
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.