Automated Summary
Key Facts
The Employment Tribunal case 2204808/2018, heard by Employment Judge Baty on 18-23 September 2019, involved Mr W Woodfall (Claimant) vs. Garnash Ltd (Respondent). The Claimant brought complaints of automatically unfair dismissal, disability discrimination (reasonable adjustments), direct sex discrimination, indirect religion or belief discrimination, breach of contract (notice pay), and non-payment of holiday pay. The Tribunal found all complaints failed. The Claimant did not have the required two years' service for ordinary unfair dismissal. His employment was terminated on 16 February 2018 after he failed to sign his employment contract, did not attend work for two shifts, and was unwilling to work due to personal issues with a former acquaintance. The Tribunal found the Claimant was entitled to one week's notice pay (which had been paid in lieu), and holiday pay of £166.84 had been paid in full.
Issues
- The claimant alleged direct sex discrimination, claiming male staff were expected to intervene with difficult customers while female staff were not. The employer denied gender-specific requirements, stating all staff were invited but not required to assist, while managers and security were required to intervene.
- The claimant alleged breach of contract regarding notice pay and holiday pay. The employer admitted some payment was due but argued the claimant had been paid in lieu of notice and holiday pay had been fully settled.
- The claimant alleged disability discrimination due to failure to make reasonable adjustments regarding working on tills. He claimed his mental health conditions (PTSD, anxiety, depression) caused difficulties with numbers and math, but failed to prove he was disabled or that the disability caused the alleged disadvantage.
- The claimant argued his dismissal was automatically unfair under Section 100 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because he brought health and safety concerns about male employees being expected to deal with dangerous customers to his employer. The employer disputed this and argued dismissal was for other reasons.
- The claimant alleged indirect religion discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, claiming he might be required to work on Sundays when he attends church. The employer denied applying such a policy and argued any PCP would be justified.
Holdings
The Employment Tribunal dismissed all of the claimant's complaints, including automatically unfair dismissal, disability discrimination (reasonable adjustments), direct sex discrimination, indirect religion or belief discrimination, breach of contract regarding notice pay, and non-payment of holiday pay. The tribunal found that the claimant failed to prove he was a disabled person under the Equality Act 2010, did not establish a disability-related disadvantage requiring reasonable adjustments, lacked evidence of gender-specific expectations in handling shoplifters, and there was no provision, criterion or practice related to Sunday work. Additionally, the dismissal was for valid reasons unrelated to health and safety concerns, and notice and holiday pay were properly settled.
Legal Principles
- The tribunal applied the balance of probabilities standard to determine whether the claimant met his burden of proof for disability discrimination, automatic unfair dismissal, and other claims.
- The claimant bore the burden of proving he was a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 and that he was dismissed for bringing health and safety concerns to his employer's attention.
Cited Statute
- Equality Act 2010, Section 19(1)
- Employment Rights Act 1996, Section 86
- Equality Act 2010, Sections 20-22 and Schedule 8
- Equality Act 2010, Section 19(2)
- Equality Act 2010, Section 13(1)
- Employment Rights Act 1996, Section 100(1)
- Equality Act 2010, Section 6(1)
Judge Name
Employment Judge Baty
Passage Text
- As we have found, there was in fact no demand, practice, expectation or even possibility that the claimant might be required to work on Sundays. The respondent did not, therefore, apply a PCP that the claimant might be required to be available for work on Sundays. As the alleged PCP is not established, this complaint fails at the first stage.
- The claimant's complaints of automatically unfair dismissal, disability discrimination (reasonable adjustments), direct sex discrimination, indirect religion or belief discrimination, breach of contract (notice pay) and non-payment of holiday pay all fail.
- As noted, the claimant has not proved that he had any of the impairments of PTSD, a possible traumatic brain injury, anxiety or depression over the period of his employment when the alleged discrimination was said to have taken place. The burden of proof is on him to do so. The claimant has not therefore proved that he was a disabled person for the purposes of the Act. His reasonable adjustments complaint therefore fails at the first stage.