Claimant v B&K Environmental Services Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The respondent accepted that it dismissed the claimant without a fair procedure. The tribunal found the real reason was poor performance but that the dismissal was procedurally unfair as no performance improvement plan or proper dismissal process was followed.
The tribunal found that the dismissal was not because of the claimant's disability but due to poor performance in the context of economic difficulties. The respondent dismissed another non-disabled employee (Ms Mach) at the same time for the same reason. The respondent had previously supported the claimant with adjustments including part-time working and a personal trainer, demonstrating the dismissal was not disability-related.
Facts
The claimant was a picker at a waste disposal company employed from February 2015 to November 2023. He became disabled and was on sick leave from April 2020 to May 2022. Upon return, the respondent made adjustments including part-time work and restrictions on lifting heavy items. He was dismissed in October 2023 for poor performance (50% less productive than colleagues) during a period of financial difficulty. Another non-disabled employee was dismissed at the same time for the same reason. The claimant alleged disability discrimination in relation to various workplace matters and the dismissal itself.
Decision
The tribunal found that the unfair dismissal claim succeeded because the respondent admitted it did not follow a fair procedure. However, all disability discrimination claims failed. The tribunal found the dismissal was due to poor performance in the context of economic pressures, not disability. Had a fair process been followed, the claimant would have been dismissed 3 months later. The basic award was £5,382.84 but the compensatory award was reduced to nil because an ex-gratia payment of £5,626.80 had already been made.
Practical note
An employer can successfully defend a disability discrimination claim relating to dismissal where it can show the reason was poor performance, supported by contemporaneous evidence of performance concerns and dismissal of a non-disabled comparator at the same time for the same reason, even where the dismissal letter contains poorly worded references to the disability.
Award breakdown
Award equivalent: 12.0 weeks' gross pay
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3303031/2024
- Decision date
- 14 October 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 5
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Picker
- Salary band
- £20,000–£25,000
- Service
- 9 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No