In person For the v Respondent — 2023

The claimant worked for the respondent from 1 August 2011 until he resigned on 18 March 2021 as a spray operator. The respondent accepted that he was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 by reason of ME and chronic fatigue syndrome during the material period, and the tribunal found the respondent knew of the disability from 5 January 2019. From spring 2020 the farm manager, Tom Forrest, arranged adjustments including removing drain jetting and quad bike spraying, reducing hours and weekend work, assigning less physically demanding tasks, and allowing the claimant to manage his own breaks and pace.

On the disability discrimination claims, the tribunal found no unfavourable treatment because of something arising from disability and no failure to make reasonable adjustments. It rejected the claimant's case on the alleged increased workload, lack of breaks, parking restrictions, and other incidents, finding that where the evidence conflicted it preferred the respondent's witnesses. It also found the return-to-work arrangements on 8 October 2020 were intended to follow the Corazon occupational health report, including a phased return and the use of untaken holiday before a planned return on 19 October 2020.

The harassment and victimisation claims also failed. The tribunal found the pleaded harassment incidents were not proved and were not related to disability or age. For victimisation, it held that only the grievance of 19 October 2020 was capable of amounting to a protected act, but none of the alleged detriments after that date were proved; the cancellation of the NROSO direct debit on 25 January 2021 was accepted as a misunderstanding rather than retaliation. The tribunal also rejected the allegation that the claimant's job had been advertised while he was suspended and found he had not been suspended.

The constructive unfair dismissal claim failed because the tribunal found no repudiatory breach and no link between the alleged conduct and the resignation. It found the claimant had been planning to relocate to Wales and that the respondent had continued to try to resolve the dispute through grievance handling and proposed mediation. The remaining claims were also dismissed: the s.44 health and safety detriment claim, the s.47B protected disclosure detriment claim, the Working Time Regulations claim about annual leave in October 2020, and the s.23 breach of contract or unlawful deduction claim. No remedy was awarded.