Mr G Braithwaite v Richmond Villages Operations Limited — 2024

Mr G Braithwaite worked for Richmond Villages Operations Limited as a Laundry Assistant and Cleaner from 9 April 2019 to 11 November 2021. The tribunal accepted that he had Autism Spectrum Disorder and that the respondent knew of it throughout his employment. At the hearing he withdrew the protected-disclosure detriment claim, the health and safety detriment claim, the automatic unfair dismissal claim, and one reasonable-adjustments complaint based on the alleged PCP of requiring him to use a labelling gun up to August 2019; those matters were dismissed on withdrawal.

The remaining dispute centred on the respondent's COVID-19 testing and later vaccination processes. The tribunal found that the claimant was told in May 2020 that testing was available, but that the respondent did not at that stage require testing as a condition of working. After the claimant refused further testing in September 2020, he was told to stay away from work, use annual leave and then authorised unpaid leave, and the respondent referred him to Occupational Health. The tribunal found that the claimant did not consent to release of the Occupational Health report, which limited the respondent's ability to consider adjustments.

The tribunal rejected the claimant's case that the September 2020 meetings were conducted in a hostile or intimidating way, or that the respondent should have insisted on his brother being present. It found that the respondent knew of the disability in an institutional sense, that the meetings were aimed at understanding the refusal to test and the OH process, and that the conduct did not amount to harassment. It also rejected the complaint about the October 2019 lift incident and said that, even if that reasonable-adjustments complaint had succeeded, it would have been out of time.

In 2021 the respondent consulted about the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2021 and the requirement that staff in care homes be vaccinated or exempt. The tribunal found the regulations were in force for the relevant period, that the respondent held a genuine belief it could not lawfully allocate work after 11 November 2021 without evidence of vaccination or exemption, and that the consultation process, although imperfect and containing some inaccuracies, was reasonable overall. The claimant did not complete the self-certification form, did not engage with the consultation in substance, and did not pursue the appeal process, so the unfair dismissal claim failed.

The disability claims also failed. On the s.15 claim, the tribunal accepted that the refusal to undergo testing arose from autism and that the claimant was treated unfavourably, but held that the respondent's actions were a proportionate means of protecting vulnerable residents and complying with the regulatory regime. The reasonable-adjustments claim failed because the tribunal did not accept that the alleged PCPs required further steps beyond those taken, and because the Occupational Health route was pursued but the claimant would not consent to disclosure. The indirect disability discrimination claim failed because the claimant did not show the necessary group disadvantage, and the harassment claim failed because the meetings and general staff emails were not conduct it was reasonable to regard as creating the proscribed environment. The breach of contract claim also failed: the tribunal held that the testing requirement was a reasonable contractual change within the variation clause, and that the later written confirmation did not make the change unlawful. No remedy hearing was needed and no award was made.