Member A Matheson Tribunal Member L Brown Mr W Hynds v Mitsibushi Electric Air Conditioning — 2024

The claimant began work for the respondent on 29 October 2018 as a production operator at its Livingston factory. The tribunal found that he was a disabled person for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 because he had diabetes and neuropathy, which affected mobility and dexterity. In March 2021 another employee who was undertaking temporary supervisory duties timed his toilet visits; the claimant grieved, the person concerned was told to stop, and an apology was made. The claimant then had a long absence from 17 August 2022 to 14 July 2023 because of a shoulder injury, and after occupational health involvement and meetings in May and June 2023 he returned to work on a day-shift role in another factory building from July/August 2023.

On harassment, the tribunal found that the March 2021 toilet-timing incident amounted to harassment related to disability, but the claim was presented more than two years later. It held there was no basis for extending time under section 123 Equality Act 2010 and rejected the claimant's broader harassment allegations because they were vague, unspecified, and unsupported by evidence. The tribunal therefore did not grant any relief on that complaint.

On reasonable adjustments, the claimant alleged that the respondent should have provided a disabled toilet, a disabled parking space, and a different job role. The tribunal found that he had not identified a relevant PCP for the toilet and parking complaints, had not shown a substantial disadvantage, and had not told the respondent that he required either adjustment. It accepted the respondent's evidence that toilet and parking facilities were adequate, and it held that the job-role complaint was unsupported by evidence and, in any event, time-barred.

On discrimination arising from disability, the tribunal held that the claimant was not paid full pay between April and July 2023 because he was not fit to return to his contractual role and the respondent was using its company sick pay arrangements while it identified suitable alternative work. It further held that the loss of shift allowance after the move to a day-shift role flowed from the new contractual arrangements and not from disability. On the wages claim, the tribunal accepted that £1,029.60 was deducted from the claimant's final pay for annual leave taken in excess of entitlement, which fell within the statutory exception for overpayment; it noted that payroll later considered £939 to be the correct figure, but no adjustment was made because the balance remained negative. The constructive dismissal claim also failed: the tribunal found no fundamental breach by the respondent and concluded that the claimant had already been considering resignation before he handed in his letter on 8 January 2024.