In person, assisted by her son Mr D Broadhead For the v Respondent — 2025

The claimant worked in the respondent's KS area at its Wales Bar factory and the tribunal accepted that she was disabled by LADA diabetes, diabetic neuropathy, and depression with anxiety; it also noted the combined effect of coeliac disease for completeness. The respondent's operational case was that production changes and falling demand required greater flexibility between morning and afternoon shifts, but the tribunal found that the claimant had long-standing occupational health restrictions, including a morning-shift-only arrangement, and that the respondent had knowledge of her shift restriction by no later than November 2023 from the OH history.

On the section 15 claim, the tribunal held that suggesting on 28 March and 18 April 2024 that the claimant should go against occupational health advice and work a two-shift pattern was unfavourable treatment arising from her inability to work two shifts because of disability. The respondent's aim of meeting demand and operating the lines efficiently was accepted as legitimate, but the tribunal found that this suggestion was not an appropriate or reasonably necessary way to achieve that aim. The separate allegation that she was threatened with dismissal on 11 June 2024 failed because the tribunal found she was only told, in response to her own question, that capability dismissal could be a possible outcome.

On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal identified the PCPs as the requirement to work a two-shift pattern and the requirement to work contractual duties. It found that the two-shift PCP put the claimant at a substantial disadvantage, that the respondent knew or should have known of that disadvantage by November 2023 at the latest, and that allowing her to continue on the morning shift from 6.00 am to 1.45 pm was a reasonable step. The tribunal also found that the four part-time workers who covered morning shifts did not have contractual morning-only rights, so at least two of them could have been moved to afternoons to make room for the claimant; it rejected counselling, welfare meetings and risk/workstation assessment as steps that would avoid the disadvantage, although it said a risk assessment should in any event have been carried out.

The harassment claim related to disability was dismissed. The tribunal rejected the allegation that the respondent acted with a purpose of violating dignity, and held that the dismissal allegation was not made out on the facts. It found that the allegations about OH referrals and the two-shift proposal did not satisfy the s.26 test in the way required for harassment, and the reasons contain an apparent inconsistency between paragraphs 160 and 166 about allegation 4.1.1. No monetary remedy is recorded in these reasons; the judgment resolves liability only.