Claimant v Toolstation Limited

The tribunal found the reason for dismissal was capability, a potentially fair reason. The respondent had consulted extensively over nearly two years, obtained three Occupational Health reports, held three capability meetings, and considered alternatives. The dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses open to the respondent in the circumstances.

The tribunal found that Mr Prior dismissed the claimant because the respondent could no longer tolerate the business and staff disruption caused by the claimant's working pattern, not because he was disabled. No facts were established from which discrimination could be inferred. The claim failed at stage one of the burden of proof test.

The tribunal found the dismissal occurred because of something (inability to work contractual hours) arising from the claimant's disability. However, the respondent established objective justification: the legitimate aim of operating the store effectively while respecting work-life balance of all staff was achieved proportionately, particularly given the claimant declined reasonable alternative arrangements offered.

The tribunal found the claimant did not establish substantial disadvantage caused by the PCPs when compared to non-disabled comparators. The claimant himself said it was 'not about the hours'. Moreover, adjustments had already been made (set days, structured rota with four weeks' notice). The offers made by Mr Prior and Mr Bellamy were reasonable but declined by the claimant.

Seven allegations were made. The first four were found factually incorrect. The fifth and sixth (continuing meeting on 5 December despite claimant being unwell and dismissing without his response) were factually correct but did not meet the statutory definition of harassment: the conduct was not related to disability but to business needs after lengthy adjustments. The seventh allegation (Mr Wheeler allegedly making an offensive gesture on 9 July 2024) was not proven on the balance of probabilities.