Automated Summary
Key Facts
This Employment Tribunal judgment concerns Mr. Richard Howard Southworth (claimant) versus SPS (EU) Limited (respondent). The Tribunal found the respondent discriminated against the disabled claimant by failing to pay his notice and other payments in full, which was due to his disability (discrimination arising from disability). The claimant, diagnosed with cancer in 2014 requiring treatment in Glasgow on Tuesdays, was underpaid because his termination calculations used a four-day work week instead of a five-day week. The Tribunal also found the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments regarding the requirement for the claimant to be on-site during redundancy consultation, placing him at a substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled colleagues.
Issues
- The tribunal determined whether the claimant's dismissal was a detriment carried out because he made a protected act complaint about discrimination in 2015.
- The tribunal assessed whether the respondent treated the claimant less favorably because of his disability, specifically regarding return to work, redundancy communication, remote work requests, garden leave, and alternative roles.
- The tribunal considered whether the respondent treated the claimant unfavorably because of something arising from his disability, particularly regarding pay calculations during termination.
- The tribunal examined whether the employer's dismissal of the claimant was fair, considering whether the redundancy was a valid reason and whether the employer followed a reasonable procedure.
- The tribunal assessed whether the respondent unlawfully deducted wages by calculating termination payments based on a four-day work week instead of a five-day week.
- The tribunal evaluated whether the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate the claimant's disability, specifically regarding remote work and access to information during redundancy consultation.
- The tribunal examined whether the claimant's redundancy payment was calculated correctly, considering the four-day versus five-day work week calculation.
Holdings
- The Tribunal found the respondent discriminated against the claimant, a disabled person, by treating him unfavourably when it failed to pay his notice and other payments, with the exception of the statutory redundancy payment, in full.
- The Tribunal dismissed all other claims made by the claimant.
- The Tribunal determined that the respondent's failure to pay the claimant's notice and other payments in full constituted an unlawful deduction from the claimant's wages.
Remedies
The tribunal found the respondent discriminated against the claimant by failing to pay his notice and other payments in full, with the exception of the statutory redundancy payment, and that this failure amounted to an unlawful deduction from wages. The tribunal determined that the normal salary, payment in lieu of notice, and holiday pay entitlement should be recalculated based on a 5-day work week rather than a 4-day week.
Legal Principles
- The Tribunal applied the burden of proof that the claimant must provide counter-proposals to the redundancy proposal, and the claimant did not meet this burden by failing to provide written responses to the consultation process.
- The Tribunal applied specific statutory provisions from the Employment Rights Act 1996 and Equality Act 2010 to determine liability for unfair dismissal, direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, victimisation, and unlawful deduction from wages.
- The Tribunal applied the 'satisfied' standard of proof in determining the facts of the case, finding the respondent's evidence sufficient to establish the redundancy of the claimant's role and the validity of the redundancy process.
Precedent Name
Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd [1987]
Cited Statute
- Employment Rights Act 1996
- Equality Act 2010
Judge Name
- Mr S Stott
- Employment Judge Sherratt
- Ms L Atkinson
Passage Text
- We find that when the claimant was told both orally and in writing by a director that his pay during the consultation period would be full pay, without any reference to full pay being for four days rather than five, the claimant could reasonably expect to rely upon this statement and to be paid in full during the consultation period and that his entitlements would be calculated on the basis of full pay. The claimant had never expressly agreed to being paid for only four days. We therefore conclude that to the extent that the payments were based upon pay for a four day rather than a five day week the claimant was underpaid.
- The respondent discriminated against the claimant, a disabled person, by treating him unfavourably when it failed to pay his notice and other payments, with the exception of the statutory redundancy payment, in full.
- In our judgment the claimant was treated less favourably when he was only paid 80% of what he expected to receive on termination save in respect of the redundancy payment. The reason arose because of the reasonable adjustments to the number of days to be worked each week made in consequence of the claimant's disability without taking into account the subsequent clear oral and written statements to the effect that the claimant would be paid in full in respect of the consultation period. Given the amount of money involved here - 20% of the claimant's salary for the number of weeks involved, and thereafter the complete saving of the claimant's salary - we do not find the treatment was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim and so we find that the respondent did treat the claimant unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of his disability.