Mr Karl Ruddock Respondent 1: Manchetts (Holdings) Ltd Respondent 2: Mr Sean Manchett Respondent 3: Mr Peter Alexander Respondent 4: Mrs Jeni Davy v Respondent — 2023

The tribunal held that the claimant's employer was Manchetts Ltd under the contract of employment. It accepted that the claimant was disabled by COPD, emphysema and dyslexia, that the respondent knew of the COPD from at least 25 January 2018, and that after a prolonged period of sickness absence and furlough the claimant returned to work on 1 April 2021 on a phased plan using a 7.5 tonne truck and day shifts, with limits informed by occupational health.

On the constructive dismissal claim, the tribunal found that the respondent had held welfare meetings, referred the claimant to occupational health, and sought to identify duties he could perform. It accepted that some communication could have been clearer, and that a small number of jobs would have overloaded the 7.5 tonne truck, but found there was no deliberate policy of requiring unlawful work, no repudiatory breach of contract, and no resignation in response to such a breach. The tribunal also found that, even if some matters could have amounted to breach, the claimant affirmed the contract before resigning on 31 August 2021.

The direct disability discrimination complaints failed. The tribunal rejected the allegations that the respondent refused to discuss pay, refused to accept cardiology letters, or treated the claimant less favourably by moving him to a 7.5 tonne truck. It found the truck transfer was intended to reduce physical exertion and the risk of inappropriate allocations, that pay was not reduced, and that the request that he check the position with the DVLA was prompted by safety and insurer concerns rather than discriminatory treatment.

The indirect discrimination and reasonable adjustments complaints also failed. The tribunal held that the pleaded requirements for all drivers to return to full duties within three months, or for the claimant to undertake specified jobs, were not applied in the way alleged. It found that the claimant's role on scene was to assess the job and call for support if needed, that he could refuse unsuitable work, and that the proposed adjustments either had already been implemented or would not have addressed any substantial disadvantage.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant's physical limitations, including lifting up to 15 kg and walking only short distances, arose in consequence of disability, but it did not find that the disputed treatment was because of those limitations. It held that the DVLA issue was driven by concern about fitness to drive and that, even if any unfavourable treatment had been shown, it would have been justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The harassment claim failed for similar reasons. The tribunal found that the alleged comments at the 3 August 2021 meeting, the criticisms about equipment, and the 3 September 2021 letter did not amount to unwanted conduct related to disability that had the required effect. It concluded that the letter of 3 September 2021 was a summary of the adjustments the respondent said it had made, not conduct that would reasonably be seen as harassing. All complaints were dismissed and no monetary award was made.