Member: P O’Hagan Tribunal Member: Ms M McAllister Mr A Greasley-Adams v ’s spouse Royal Mail Group Ltd — 2023

Adam Greasley-Adams was employed by Royal Mail Group Ltd as an MGV driver. The tribunal found that he had adult autistic spectrum disorder diagnosed in March 2017 and was disabled within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the material time, which it treated as running from about 1 September 2021 to 24 February 2022. It also found that the claims were presented in time because the conduct complained of extended to about 24 February 2022 and the ET1 was lodged after ACAS early conciliation began that day.

Two claims were withdrawn before the merits hearing: the part-time worker less favourable treatment claim and the reasonable adjustments claim under sections 20/21 of the Equality Act 2010. Both were dismissed under Rule 52 after withdrawal on 26 July 2022. The remaining claims were indirect age discrimination and indirect disability discrimination arising from the Stirling Delivery Office revision and the creation of an MGV reserve role.

The tribunal held that the alleged PCPs in issues 3(a) to 3(c) were limited to the appointment process for one MGV reserve post and were not PCPs within section 19 because they did not describe a general practice capable of repetition. It found that the advert for the role was displayed at the signing-on desk and likely also in the canteen and staffing board, so the complaint that it was not shown to all staff did not succeed. The indirect age discrimination claim and the indirect disability discrimination claim based on seniority were therefore dismissed.

On the shift-pattern allegation, the tribunal accepted only the first sentence of the pleaded PCP, namely that applicants for reserve jobs had to be able to undertake all shifts in the delivery office, including night shift and delivery work. It did not accept the additional assertion that no adjustment would be made, found no wider PCP was applied, and said there was no evidence to support the proposition that autistic people were more likely to be unable to complete all shift patterns. No monetary remedy was awarded, and the tribunal noted that the claimant's suggested recommendations went beyond what section 124 of the Equality Act 2010 would permit.