Mr C D Stuart v Group Tyre Wholesale Ltd — 2022

The tribunal held that Mr Stuart had not shown that he was disabled within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010 during the relevant period, January 2019 to March 2020. It considered the medical material, including the 2015 letter from Dr Bremmer, the January 2019 GP letter referring to anxiety and sertraline, the 2019 fit notes, and the 2021 assessment, but found that the evidence of impact on day-to-day activities was limited and did not establish a substantial long-term adverse effect. It therefore dismissed the disability discrimination claim, including the complaints pleaded as direct disability discrimination and discrimination arising from disability.

On the factual allegations, the tribunal accepted that the respondent asked about Mr Stuart's mental health at the 30 January 2019 welfare meeting and that the later decision to stand him down on 10 May 2019 and suspend him was driven by safety concerns after he said he had suicidal thoughts. It also found that later matters relied on by Mr Stuart, including the supervisor application, the move to Potters Bar, and the 7 March 2020 incident, were not shown to have been done because of disability or because of the grievance. The tribunal also recorded that general complaints of bullying and complaints connected with his physical injury were outside the Equality Act disability claim as presented.

The victimisation claim was also dismissed. The tribunal accepted that the grievance dated 17 April 2019 was a protected act, but held that the conversation with Mr Hopper on 10 May 2019 was not a protected act because Mr Stuart did not in that conversation assert that he was being discriminated against under the Equality Act. It then found that the post-grievance conduct relied on was explained by workplace friction, management issues, or safety concerns, and not by the protected act.

The unlawful deduction from wages claim failed. The tribunal found that from July to September 2019 the claimant was not fit for the available driving work without the restrictions in his medical certificates, so the respondent was entitled to keep him on statutory sick pay rather than full pay. It also accepted the respondent's evidence that overtime was retrospectively authorised where drivers missed breaks and found no basis to conclude that the claimant had proved unpaid overtime before the claim was presented.