In person v Respondent — 2021

The Tribunal found that Mr Tulett was disabled at all material times by reason of type 2 diabetes and that Readypower knew of that disability from March 2019. It recorded that he raised concerns in a grievance on 28 October 2019 about his shift pattern, occupational health input, and equipment in the cab. After an occupational health report dated 4 December 2019 raised sleep-apnoea concerns, he was suspended on full pay from 11 December 2019 while his fitness for work was assessed. A later sleep-clinic report found no evidence of obstructive sleep apnoea, and the earlier adjustments to his hours were removed.

The direct disability discrimination claim was dismissed. The Tribunal held that moving the Claimant to Monday-to-Friday working from 24 September 2019 was not less favourable treatment because all drivers were moved to that pattern for operational reasons, some weekend work still remained available, and there was no contractual right to a particular rota. It also rejected the complaint about the options offered on 16 January 2020, finding that the Respondent had non-discriminatory reasons for requiring either night work on the HGV Class 1 vehicle or work on a HIAB vehicle. The Tribunal said the first allegation would also have been out of time.

The reasonable adjustments complaint was also dismissed. For the request for a fridge and microwave in the cab, the Tribunal found that the absence of those items did not place Mr Tulett at a substantial disadvantage compared with non-disabled drivers, and it relied on the occupational health view that how food was stored or prepared had no relation to his diabetes or metformin. For the complaint about being required to work weekdays from 24 September 2019 to 1 December 2019, the Tribunal found no substantial disadvantage because he was able to attend GP appointments and had flexibility around start times.

The victimisation claim failed because, although the 28 October 2019 grievance was capable of being a protected act, the Tribunal found no evidence that the 16 January 2020 shift and vehicle options were influenced by it. The unlawful deduction from wages claim succeeded only in part: the Tribunal held that, during the medical suspension from 11 December 2019 to 16 January 2020, the amount properly payable was his average pay over the previous 12 weeks rather than basic pay only. His separate claim for enhanced Christmas shift rates failed because those shifts were voluntary and he did not work them. No monetary figure for the underpayment is stated in the judgment.