Martyn Sterry v Newspace Containers Ltd Lydney — 2024

The claimant, Martyn Sterry, worked for Newspace Containers Ltd from July 2019 until his summary dismissal on 10 February 2023. At an earlier preliminary hearing the tribunal had found that he was disabled for Equality Act purposes because of type II diabetes, depression and anxiety. He brought claims of unfair dismissal, discrimination arising from disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments.

The tribunal heard evidence about a dispute over safety footwear in late 2022. It found that the claimant had sought expensive boots above the company cap, that occupational health was involved, and that a different pair of safety shoes was provided by 30 November 2022. It found that by the time of the disciplinary incident he was at most uncomfortable rather than in pain, that his office-based role meant he did not need to wear safety shoes throughout the day, and that the footwear issue did not place him at a substantial disadvantage compared with non-disabled employees.

The tribunal accepted the respondent's account of the 20 January 2023 incident, in which the claimant lost his temper during banter in the stores office and put his hands around colleague Robbie Payne's throat twice. It found that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had committed gross misconduct, that the investigation and disciplinary process were fair and thorough, and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. It also rejected the contention that other employees had been treated differently in materially comparable cases.

On the disability claims, the tribunal found that the respondent knew about the claimant's diabetes and, by 15 December 2022, knew or should reasonably have been expected to know that anxiety and depression amounted to a disability. However, it found no sufficient evidence that diabetes, foot discomfort, memory fog, mood swings or 'diabetic rage' caused the assault or materially contributed to it, and held that dismissal and appeal rejection were based on the assault itself. It also held that the respondent's legitimate aims of protecting employees against violence and maintaining a consistent disciplinary process justified dismissal, and that no reasonable adjustment claim succeeded. No remedy was awarded because all claims were dismissed.