Automated Summary
Key Facts
The Claimant, Mr. Ben Addems, alleged disability discrimination (Crohn's disease), constructive unfair dismissal, breaches of the Working Time Regulations (excessive hours, lack of rest periods), and unauthorized wage deductions against Systems Hygienics Ltd. The Tribunal found no evidence to support claims of disability discrimination, constructive dismissal, or most working time breaches. However, the Claimant's complaint about unauthorised wage deductions on 3 February 2016 during his notice period was upheld. Discrepancies between claimed hours on timesheets and tracker records showed he often worked fewer hours than reported. The Claimant resigned in January 2016 citing personal issues (a relationship with a colleague) rather than work-related grievances, and his demotion was attributed to organizational failings, not disability-related treatment.
Issues
- Claimant alleges unlawful disability discrimination under sections 15, 20, and 21 of the Equality Act 2010, including failure to make reasonable adjustments for Crohn's disease.
- Claimant claims constructive unfair dismissal due to alleged repudiatory breaches, including demotion and excessive work demands.
- Claimant claims automatic unfair dismissal under Section 101A for refusing to comply with WTR violations.
- Complaints about failure to provide rest periods under Regulations 10 and 11 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, including daily and weekly rest requirements.
- Claimant alleges detriments short of dismissal for asserting rights under Working Time Regulations, including demotion and reduced support.
- Dispute over whether complaints about rest period breaches were presented within the statutory three-month time limit under Regulation 30(2)(b).
- Claimant asserts unauthorised deduction of wages for work on 3 February 2016 during his notice period.
Holdings
- The Claimant was not dismissed by the Respondent within the meaning of section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and his complaint of unfair constructive dismissal is dismissed. The Tribunal found no evidence of a repudiatory breach of contract, as the Claimant did not protest his demotion and resigned due to personal issues, not work-related grievances.
- The Claimant's complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages is well-founded. The Tribunal ruled the Respondent must pay the Claimant for an office day on 3 February 2016, as Ryan Gray was paid for the same workday while the Claimant was not.
- The Claimant's complaints of unlawful disability discrimination are dismissed. The Tribunal concluded there was no medical evidence linking his Crohn's disease to work practices, and the Respondent's actions (e.g., demotion) were based on organizational shortcomings rather than disability-related treatment. The Claimant's GP confirmed his condition did not impact work duties.
- The Claimant's complaints of detriments short of dismissal are dismissed. The Tribunal found no causal link between the Respondent's actions (e.g., demotion, shift adjustments) and the Claimant's alleged disability, as these were attributed to performance and administrative reasons.
- The Claimant was not automatically unfairly dismissed. The Tribunal determined his resignation was not in response to a breach of the Working Time Regulations, as he did not assert these rights during employment and the demotion was tied to work performance, not discriminatory conduct.
Remedies
The Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant his wages due for 3 February 2016 during his notice period. A remedy hearing will be listed unless the parties agree on a remedy by 1 December 2017.
Legal Principles
- The Tribunal emphasized the employer's duty under the Working Time Regulations to proactively ensure rest periods, finding the Respondent failed to demonstrate compliance with Regulation 10 (11-hour daily rest). However, no breach of duty was found in the disability discrimination context due to the Claimant's lack of medical evidence.
- The Tribunal concluded the Claimant's Working Time Regulations claims were partially valid (breach of Regulation 10 for daily rest periods) but dismissed claims under Regulation 11 due to time-barred allegations. The unauthorised wage deduction claim was upheld as the Claimant provided clear evidence of non-payment for an office day.
- The Tribunal found the Claimant failed to meet the burden of proof for disability discrimination claims due to lack of medical evidence linking his work patterns to health deterioration. The Claimant's constructive dismissal allegations were dismissed as he did not challenge his demotion or demonstrate a fundamental breach of contract.
Precedent Name
- Carter v Prestige Nursing Limited
- Grange v Abellio London Limited
- Scottish Ambulance Service v Truslove & Another
- Miles v Linkage Community Trust Limited
- Ajay I v Aitch Care Homes (London) Limited
Cited Statute
- Equality Act 2010
- Working Time Regulations 1998
- Employment Rights Act 1996
Judge Name
- Ms BC Leverton
- Mrs C Upshall
- Employment Judge Hall-Smith
Passage Text
- The Claimant's complaints of unlawful disability discrimination are not well founded and are accordingly dismissed.
- The Claimant's complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages is well founded to the extent set out in the Tribunal's Reasons for its Judgment.
- It is the unanimous judgment of the Tribunal that the Claimant was not automatically unfairly dismissed by the Respondent.