member J McCullagh Tribunal member R Martin Mr David Robb v Sysco GB Limited — 2026

The tribunal unanimously dismissed David Robb's claims against Sysco GB Limited for failure to make reasonable adjustments and direct disability discrimination. Mr Robb worked as a warehouse operative on permanent night shifts at its Dundee depot. Sysco admitted that his brain lymphoma, diagnosed in 2019, amounted to a disability and that it knew of the disability throughout the relevant period. The complaints concerned events on or before 5 August 2025. His dismissal in July 2026 was outside the claims determined at this hearing.

The tribunal held that both complaints were brought in time. Applying Hendricks and Waithaka, it treated the allegations of inadequate adjustments and management failing to take concerns seriously as an alleged continuing state of affairs, rather than separate, unrelated decisions. The grievance outcome of 26 June 2025 addressed those continuing concerns. Early conciliation ran from 7 to 14 July 2025, and the claim was presented on 5 August 2025. No just and equitable extension was required.

The tribunal accepted that Mr Robb continued to experience fatigue and other effects of his condition and treatment, but rejected his assertion that no meaningful adjustments had been made following his return to work. From September 2019, Sysco provided a phased return on normal pay, reduced hours, restricted duties and additional breaks. He was later allowed to work at his own pace without normal productivity expectations. Further occupational health advice led to restrictions on voice-picking, freezer and bulk-loading duties. The tribunal preferred the respondent's evidence where supported by contemporaneous records. It also rejected the allegation that the August 2019 occupational health report had been fabricated, finding that the consultation took place and the report was genuine.

The reasonable adjustments claim initially relied on a provision, criterion or practice requiring Mr Robb to perform the full warehouse role without modification. Applying the framework in Rowan, Saunders and Ishola, the tribunal found that this practice had not been established because adjustments had operated from his return. It also considered his alternative case that he remained subject to ordinary warehouse duties unless management exempted him from particular tasks. On that basis, it accepted that his fatigue and other symptoms would place him at a substantial disadvantage compared with a non-disabled employee undertaking physically demanding work.

Mr Robb sought more of the less physically demanding tasks he called the 'wee jobs'. The tribunal found that some were completed before his shift, formed part of managerial duties or arose only when operational needs required them. Sysco already allocated hygiene and trunker-emptying duties where feasible, prioritised him for available trunker work and provided some lighter administrative tasks. Occupational health had not identified the requested allocation as a required adjustment. Mr Robb had also declined reduced hours and a dayshift hygiene role, wishing to remain on nights. The tribunal found that allocating him exclusively or substantially more often to the requested tasks was not a step Sysco could reasonably be required to take.