In person For the v Respondent — 2020

Mr G Ojiako worked as a part-time sales advisor at H&M's Harrow store from 3 July 2018. The tribunal accepted that he had dyspraxia, that he had disclosed it in a June 2018 email, and that H&M knew of the disability at all material times. After events on 1 and 2 March 2019, he wrote a resignation letter dated 4 April 2019, was interviewed on 4 April, and was summarily dismissed on 18 April 2019. His appeal was later allowed by Mark Stott on 16 July 2019, who said the dismissal should be overturned and the resignation accepted in its place, with the employment treated as ending on 3 May 2019; the tribunal applied that contractual analysis when dealing with pay due after the dismissal date.

On the February 2019 complaint, the tribunal found that Ms Faifer did say words to the effect that Mr Ojiako was slow and criticised him for leaving 'dumps'. It rejected the harassment claim because the comments were not made for the purpose of violating dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment, and because their effect did not meet the statutory threshold. It also rejected the section 15 disability discrimination claim on the same facts, holding that the comments were not unfavourable treatment and, in any event, were a proportionate means of keeping the shop floor tidy.

The tribunal held that Mr Ojiako was dismissed because of aggressive conduct on 1 and 2 March 2019, and that there was no evidence that that conduct arose in consequence of dyspraxia. The dismissal-related section 15 claim therefore failed. The constructive dismissal claim also failed: although the claimant resigned after the 3 April 2019 meeting, the tribunal did not find conduct amounting to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The separate wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed.

On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal found no substantial disadvantage in relation to advance warning of the 4 April 2019 investigation meeting. It accepted, however, that H&M should have offered the claimant a 10-minute break each hour in formal meetings, and that no such break was offered at the 18 April disciplinary hearing. Even so, it held that this section 20 claim was presented outside the three-month time limit and that waiting for the appeal outcome was not a good reason to extend time, so the claim was dismissed as out of time. No injury-to-feelings or other discrimination compensation was awarded. The only quantified monetary award was accrued holiday pay of £27.62, and the tribunal also held that Mr Ojiako was entitled to wages for 19 April to 3 May 2019, with that sum left to be agreed if necessary.