Mr A Khan v MTR Corporation (Crossrail) Limited t/a MTR Elizabeth Line — 2025

Mr A Khan, a disabled employee of MTR Corporation (Crossrail) Limited t/a MTR Elizabeth Line, brought three disability reasonable-adjustment complaints and an unlawful deduction from wages claim. The tribunal accepted that he had a foot injury causing difficulty with standing and walking, and later that he had additional restrictions linked to amnesia after a head injury. It also accepted that the respondent had applied PCPs relating to gateline duties, redeployment applications, and an early start at Abbey Wood, but treated each alleged PCP separately.

PCP 1, concerning a requirement for CEAs to stand at the gateline, was dismissed because it was out of time and not treated as part of a continuing act. The tribunal said the most recent allegation of gateline duties was on 6 December 2021, and it did not consider it just and equitable to extend time. In the alternative, it found the respondent had a duty to avoid the disadvantage caused by standing duties when the PCP applied, but had already made reasonable adjustments by moving the claimant to other sedentary or office-based roles, including Liverpool Street, Custom House, and Abbey Wood. It also found it would not have been reasonable to move him into a ticket office role when he had said he did not want to work with money because of amnesia.

PCP 2 concerned the redeployment process in 2022 and 2024, under which the claimant had to apply for suitable vacancies and compete with other candidates. The tribunal held this was in time as a continuing act, but found no substantial disadvantage from the application process itself and no reasonable adjustment requiring the respondent to bypass selection or assign vacancies at Stratford or Manor Park. It accepted the respondent’s evidence that the claimant was ultimately successful in applying for the permanent Abbey Wood ticket office role, and concluded the respondent was entitled to require applications to ensure suitability for posts.

PCP 3 concerned the 6am start at Abbey Wood. The tribunal found the claimant may have been disadvantaged by mobility issues arising from his foot injury, but the point was not fully explained and the disadvantage was not made out to the standard required. It held that it would have been reasonable to allow a 6.30am start, and found the respondent did in fact amend his start time. It rejected the argument that the adjustment also had to be confirmed in writing, because written confirmation was not itself a disability-related disadvantage.

On wages, the tribunal held that the claimant’s work at Abbey Wood between January and June 2024 was temporary and fell under the health-related provisions of the agreement, so he remained entitled only to his CEA rate during that period. It found the competency-related clauses did not apply, and that the higher CSEA rate would only have been payable on formal redeployment after assessment. Because the claimant resigned on 24 June 2024 before the permanent redeployment took effect, the unlawful deduction from wages claim failed. All claims were dismissed.