Claimant v Wm Morrison Supermarkets pic — 2019

The claimant was found to be a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, his disability being depression. He brought claims under sections 15, 20 and 26 arising from the respondent's handling of his return to work after a long absence, including the decision not to let him resume at Anniesland on a phased basis, the way his grievance was handled, the alleged failure to make reasonable adjustments, and the alleged comment at the August 2016 meeting. The tribunal dismissed all claims.

On limitation, the tribunal held that the section 20 reasonable-adjustments claim and the section 26 harassment claim were out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. The harassment complaint related to the alleged "suicidal maniac" comment in August 2016, which the tribunal considered was likely made, but the claim was still time-barred. The reasonable-adjustments claim was said to rest on a PCP requiring employees to work unplanned excess hours with no break, but the tribunal was not satisfied that such a PCP was established on the evidence.

The tribunal extended time for the section 15 claim and then considered whether the respondent had treated the claimant unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of disability. It found that the respondent had not decided that the claimant would never return to Anniesland; rather, it refused a phased return there at that point because the store had changed, had become a training store, and had increased demands. That was unfavourable treatment, but the reason was not something arising in consequence of the claimant's disability. In any event, the respondent had a legitimate aim of protecting the claimant's wellbeing and supporting a sustainable return to work, and its proposal that he return through another store with review after three to six months was held to be proportionate.

The tribunal also rejected the complaint that the respondent failed to offer an alternative role at Anniesland, because the claimant was clear that he was not interested in returning there in any capacity other than bakery manager. As to the grievance point, the tribunal found that management dealt with the issues about return to work within the ongoing meetings rather than through a separate grievance process because the same matters were already being addressed and a parallel process was thought inappropriate. The claimant was medically fit to return, but from June 2018 he would not return until the grievance had been heard. The tribunal held that this treatment was not because of something arising in consequence of disability and made no award.