Case 3305366/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Vince Haigh v DK Tools Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3305366/2022
- Decision date
- 6 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchings Tribunal
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- M. Harris, C. Surrey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Vince Haigh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Haigh worked for DK Tools Ltd from 8 May 2017, became warehouse manager and later took on health and safety responsibilities, and resigned by email on 9 March 2022 with notice expiring on 6 April 2022. The tribunal accepted that he had essential hypertension and later held that it amounted to a disability within section 6 Equality Act 2010. It also found that his disability claim was brought in time on a continuing-acts basis and that it was just and equitable to extend time.
On the constructive dismissal complaint, the tribunal accepted that Mr Haigh had been moved onto 12.5-hour shifts during the Covid period and that occupational health was delayed until the grievance process had finished, but it found that these steps were taken for business reasons or on professional advice. It rejected the allegations that there had been a health and safety breach, a near miss, an offer to leave at the 7 July 2021 meeting, or erroneous facts in the grievance outcome. Applying the constructive dismissal authorities and the implied term of trust and confidence, the tribunal held that the respondent had not behaved in a way calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the employment relationship, so there was no constructive unfair dismissal.
The tribunal dismissed the harassment claim because it found that no payoff offer was made at the 7 July 2021 meeting. It dismissed the section 15 claim because the alleged forced resignation did not occur, and it rejected the case that staffing levels or the grievance process amounted to unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability. The reasonable adjustments claim also failed: the tribunal found that the revised shift pattern did not put Mr Haigh at a substantial disadvantage, that the company had increased staffing by four people when demand rose, and that he had discretion to use agency staff. No remedy was awarded because all substantive claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive ordinary unfair dismissal under s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996. The tribunal found no breach of the implied term of trust and confidence and no constructive dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability under s.26 EqA 2010. The alleged unwanted conduct was an alleged payoff offer at the 7 July 2021 meeting, but the tribunal found no offer was made. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability under s.15 EqA 2010. The tribunal found the alleged enforced resignation did not occur and therefore there was no unfavourable treatment arising from disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments under ss.20-21 EqA 2010. The tribunal found no substantial disadvantage from the shift pattern and no failure to take reasonable steps. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
23 references- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Courtaulds Northern Textiles Ltd v Andrew
- Mahmud v BCCI
- Yapp v Foreign and Commonwealth Office
- Tullett Prebon plc v BGC Brokers LP
- Buckland v Bournemouth University Higher Education Corporation
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
- United First Partners v Carreras
- Nottinghamshire County Council v Meikle
- Cockram v Air Products plc
- Abbey National plc v Fairbrother
- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- Morgan v Staffordshire University
- McDougall v Richmond Adult Community College
- Hendricks v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.20 Equality Act 2010
- s.21 Equality Act 2010
- J Hilaire v Luton Borough Council
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- Richmond Pharmacology Ltd v Dhaliwal
- Pemberton v Inwood
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.