Claimant v Paul Hartmann Limited

The Tribunal found that the unwanted conduct (launching the external investigation, proceeding in the claimant's absence, and dismissal) was not related to the claimant's disability. The Tribunal applied the test in s.26 Equality Act 2010 and concluded that while the conduct was unwanted, it was not disability-related. The claim failed on that basis.

The Tribunal found that the unfavourable treatment (refusal of pay rise, launching investigation, proceeding in absence, dismissal and appeal refusal) was not because of something arising in consequence of the claimant's disability (autism and cancer). The Tribunal concluded the effective cause was the breakdown in the working relationship and the manner of the claimant's communications, not his disability or its consequences.

The Tribunal found that the detriments (refusal of pay rise, investigation, dismissal and appeal refusal) were not significantly influenced by the protected acts (2018 grievance/claim, 2021 grievance/claim, 3 September 2021 email). The Tribunal held that the manner in which protected acts were done was separable from the acts themselves, and it was the manner (not the protected acts) that influenced the respondent's decisions.

The Tribunal found the dismissal was for some other substantial reason (breakdown of working relationship), which is a potentially fair reason. However, the dismissal was procedurally unfair because: (1) the respondent failed to postpone the dismissal hearing to allow the claimant more time and (2) Mr Marquard did not sufficiently challenge Ms Jones's report. However, the Tribunal applied a 100% Polkey reduction (claimant would have been fairly dismissed 6 weeks later) and a 100% contributory fault reduction, resulting in a nil award.