Mr O Balogun v Ronnies Limited T/A McDonalds Heard: in Leeds — 2024

Mr O Balogun worked as a crew member at the respondent's Oakwood restaurant from November 2019 until April 2023. The tribunal found that he was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 because of arthritis between October 2022 and April 2023, but that the relevant managers did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that his visible hand deformities were caused by arthritis. The claimant had been off work from October 2022 after sending an email on 17 October saying he would be temporarily unavailable while he dealt with health and family matters, but that email was not seen or actioned by the respondent.

The claimant resigned on 14 April 2023 after receiving letters on 21 February and 4 April 2023 asking him to meet about his unexplained absence and warning that disciplinary action, including possible dismissal, could follow if he did not attend. The tribunal found those letters were standard template letters used when staff were absent without contact, that the managers were trying to find out why he was off and whether he could return, and that there was no intention to threaten or dismiss him. It also found that the respondent did respond to his grievance informally by offering to meet, and that sending the Employee Handbook did not amount to ignoring his request even though it did not identify the specific policies he had asked for.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal held that the respondent's conduct did not breach the implied term of trust and confidence, was not calculated or likely to destroy trust and confidence, and was supported by reasonable and proper cause given the staffing issues at the restaurant and the claimant's prolonged absence. On the disability discrimination claim, it held that the claimant's absence from work arose from a combination of poor mental health, family circumstances, and his temporary move to Milton Keynes, and that arthritis was not a material reason for the absence. In the alternative, the tribunal held that the respondent's conduct pursued legitimate aims relating to staffing and operational needs and was proportionate.

The harassment claim also failed. The tribunal accepted that the claimant found the correspondence upsetting, but held that the conduct was not related to disability because the managers did not know he had arthritis and were acting to address staffing and absence issues. It further held that, viewed objectively, it was reasonable for the correspondence and grievance response to have been sent in the circumstances. No remedy was awarded because all claims were dismissed.