Mr T Anandrajmohan v Mr Henlly Robert Atputhanath (t/a AH Services) — 2024

The claimant worked as a service station cashier at Jet Petrol on College Road, Woking. His employment transferred from Sonco to the respondent in June 2022. The tribunal found that he had chronic back pain during the relevant period and was disabled by that condition. It also found that the respondent had constructive knowledge of the claimant's back disability from early in the employment relationship, including from the claimant's own communications and the medical information later provided.

On the reasonable adjustments claim, the tribunal accepted PCP1, namely requiring employees to stand in the till area, and found that this placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage because standing exacerbated his back pain. It concluded that providing a chair in the till area would have been a reasonable adjustment. The tribunal rejected the respondent's case that a chair could not fit or would create an unacceptable safety problem, noting that no risk assessment or measurement exercise had been done and that the office chair alternative was not sufficient to meet the duty. It rejected PCP2 and PCP3 as PCPs, finding that the rota arrangements were flexible rather than fixed requirements to work consecutive days or less than eight hours.

The discrimination arising from disability claim under section 15 EqA 2010 was dismissed. The tribunal held that the pleaded case did not align with the statutory causation structure and found, on the evidence, that the removal of the chair and the alteration of the rota were not because of the claimant's need to sit down or to work non-consecutive days. The harassment claim also failed because the tribunal found that the chair was removed by removal men rather than by the respondent, and that the rota changes were driven by business need and efficiency rather than conduct related to disability.

The TUPE claim failed because the tribunal held that the claimant's previous pattern of two eight-hour shifts on non-consecutive days was not an express or implied contractual term of the Original Contract. It found that the contract only recorded 16 hours per week, and that the claimant's former pattern was a working practice which did not transfer under regulation 4. No monetary award was recorded in this judgment.