In person For the v Respondent — 2020

This was a remote preliminary hearing before Employment Judge George, sitting alone, concerning the respondent's applications to strike out the claims or for deposit orders. The claimant remained employed by TUI Airways Ltd. He complained about the handling of his sickness absence, PHI and ill-health retirement issues, and alleged delay in facilitating his return to work or considering alternative employment after occupational health involvement. The respondent accepted disability for hypertension, chronic kidney disease, cerebral aneurysm and sleep apnoea, with knowledge as recorded in the judgment, but did not accept disability for fluid of the right petrous apex and tinnitus or emotional health issues.

The unauthorised deduction from wages complaint concerned alleged underpayment of salary from 14 June 2018 until the claimant said he was put back on payroll in March 2019. The tribunal found that the last alleged deduction was on 25 February 2019, that early conciliation did not extend time because ACAS had not been contacted within three months of that date, and that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim in time. The tribunal therefore held that it lacked jurisdiction under s.23 ERA 1996 and struck out that claim under rule 37(1)(a).

For the Equality Act claims, the tribunal found there was a prima facie case that alleged delay in facilitating return to work and alleged failure to make adjustments by considering alternative employment or a trial period could amount to conduct continuing at least to 12 March 2019. The tribunal held that limitation issues under s.123 EQA 2010 should remain live for the final hearing, including whether there was conduct extending over a period and when time started for alleged failures to act.

The tribunal rejected the respondent's argument that the claims should be struck out on the basis of attributing liability for acts of third parties, after the claimant clarified that he did not allege the respondent was responsible for third-party actions but for its own management of those third parties. The tribunal also refused deposit orders, finding the available material insufficient to conclude that the claimant had little reasonable prospect of succeeding in the disability discrimination claims. No compensation or other remedy was awarded at this preliminary stage.