Mr L Varnam, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2023

Mr Jenkins was employed by Perkins Engines from 1 July 1999 and the tribunal accepted that he was disabled by reason of Asperger Syndrome / ASD. The judgment records extensive evidence about occupational health involvement, psychotherapy, and Dr Woods' 2014 reports, and the tribunal approached oral evidence with the caution required by Gestmin because many of the disputed events were several years old.

The tribunal held that most of the earlier disability discrimination allegations were either not made out or were out of time. Those allegations concerned the October 2014 cultural survey feedback, the Patrick Lencioni video shown on 28 January 2015, the absence of a detailed job description, the timing of meetings, and sick pay / PHI issues. The tribunal found that several of those matters were potentially well founded on the merits, but it refused to extend time for Claims 1 to 4. It also rejected the separate March 2022 dismissal complaint under s.15, holding that dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims because there was no foreseeable return to work even with reasonable adjustments.

The harassment and victimisation claims also failed. The tribunal found that the alleged comments attributed to Mrs Webster and Ms Izod were not made. Mr Collins' 11 September 2015 note that the Claimant had "changed tactics" was treated as potentially harassing, but the tribunal held that claim to be out of time and refused a just and equitable extension. The alleged victimisation detriments under Issue 33 were not established, including the complaint that Mr Coleman had spoken to the Claimant in a derogatory and dismissive way, had failed to implement return-to-work arrangements, had avoided informal contact, or had refused to provide a detailed job description as retaliation for protected acts.

The unlawful deduction from wages and breach of contract claims were dismissed. The tribunal held that the PHI sums were not wages properly payable by the Respondent after 14 March 2016, that the notice-pay issue did not succeed as an unlawful deduction claim, and that the PILON / contract point failed because the Respondent's liability was met by the PHI and notice-pay payments and, in any event, by set-off against an admitted overpayment of £19,733.

The only claim that succeeded was the s.20 reasonable adjustments complaint about the grievance appeal process. The tribunal extended time to 14 June 2021 and held that the Respondent should have managed the appeal with greater regard to Mr Jenkins' need for structure, certainty, and timely decisions, particularly when meetings were cancelled or delayed and when the appeal outcome took longer than was reasonable. No remedy was assessed in this judgment, and the case was listed for a separate remedy hearing.