Mr K Ali, Counsel Mrs S Nalias, British Sign Language Interpreter For the v Respondent — 2022

The tribunal found that Mr Bannister was disabled at all material times by learning difficulties, severe bilateral hearing impairment and dysarthria, and that those impairments had substantial, adverse and long-term effects on his day-to-day activities. It also found that DPD had constructive knowledge of the dysarthria and the other impairments through the 2017 occupational health reports, his mother's correspondence and the observations of managers. The tribunal accepted that his difficulties with communication, comprehension and coping under pressure were consistent with the medical and lay evidence it heard.

On 23 January 2020 Mr Bannister had to load 133 parcels onto his 7.5-ton vehicle, with a broken ladder and no tailgate, and he was under pressure to complete a delivery to Hunter Boots at Bicester Village by 10.30am. It found that he had difficulty obtaining help with loading, that the loading and unloading process was physically difficult for him, and that he became confused and frustrated in the pressurised situation. After he threw parcels from the vehicle, the respondent suspended him, investigated the matter the same day, and then held a disciplinary hearing on 29 January 2020, after which he was dismissed for gross misconduct and bringing the company into disrepute. The tribunal also found that the appeal-stage permission for Mr Nalias to attend came too late to allow proper preparation.

The tribunal upheld the s.15 claim because the claimant's behaviour on 23 January 2020 arose in consequence of his disabilities and significantly influenced the suspension, disciplinary proceedings and dismissal. It accepted that protecting reputation and customer relationships was a legitimate aim in principle, but held that dismissal was not a proportionate response on the facts, pointing to the inadequacy of the investigation, the one-off nature of the incident, the claimant's remorse and the availability of less stressful alternatives. It upheld the reasonable-adjustments claim as well, holding that the respondent should have reduced or modified the route, relaxed deadlines, relaxed the timescales of the disciplinary process and allowed Mr Nalias to accompany the claimant. The tribunal rejected the alleged PCP of requiring deliveries to be made 'at any cost' and did not accept that the absence of a tailgate, of itself, put the claimant at a substantial disadvantage. No remedy award was determined in this judgment; the case was listed for a remedy hearing on 10 February 2023.