Claimant v C A Educo Limited

The tribunal found that the claimant made disclosures about unsafe ladder work in May 2023, but these were not believed by the claimant to be in the public interest. Using the Chesterton criteria, the disclosures only served the claimant's personal interests regarding a special school's gutter cleaning task, not a wider public interest. The claimant did not have reasonable grounds to believe the disclosures were in the public interest.

As the underlying protected disclosure claim failed (the disclosures were not found to be in the public interest), the detriment claim automatically failed without needing to consider whether the dismissal was on the ground of the alleged protected disclosure.

The tribunal found the claimant was disabled due to anxiety and the respondent knew or ought to have known this by 20 June 2023. On 20 June and 3 July 2023, the claimant was told to leave the site and not return to work, which was less favourable treatment. A hypothetical comparator without the disability would not have been treated this way. The respondent had generalised concerns about the claimant's mental health and danger to children, rather than fact-based concerns, and the disability significantly influenced the treatment.

The PCP was the requirement to prove fitness to return to work and be around children. The adjustments sought by the claimant (skyvac equipment, tower scaffolding, reduced workload, dialogue, risk assessment) would have had no real prospect of removing the substantial disadvantage. The equipment and workload adjustments might have reduced anxiety but would not remove the disadvantage relating to being around children. Dialogue and risk assessment were too imprecise to be adjustments in themselves.

The tribunal found harassment succeeded for two incidents: being told to leave the site on 20 June 2023 and 3 July 2023. Both were unwanted conduct related to disability, and while not intended to violate dignity, the claimant reasonably perceived them as having that effect given the respondent's suggestions about issues working with children. The other three alleged incidents (17 May ladder incident and two incidents on 10 July during redundancy process) failed as they did not relate to disability or were not reasonably perceived as harassment.

The claimant booked two weeks' holiday for recovery from knee surgery on 22 July 2023. From 10 July 2023, the respondent stopped the claimant from working during the redundancy consultation. The tribunal found holiday booked after the respondent prevented the claimant from working remained accrued but untaken as a result of the respondent's actions, so the claimant was entitled to be paid for it on termination.

The failure to pay the two weeks' accrued but untaken holiday pay on termination constituted an unauthorised deduction of wages contrary to the Employment Rights Act 1996. The respondent deducted this amount by treating the period as taken annual leave when it should have been paid out on termination.