Claimant v Tesco Stores Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found no less favourable treatment compared to a hypothetical comparator without disability. Ms Dickason's refusal of travel support was based on the respondent's travel policy which would apply to anyone. Mr Lumm's failure to deal with the grievance against Ms Dickason was based on the previous rejection by Mr Smith and HR advice, not disability. There was no evidence linking either decision to the claimant's disability.
While the conduct was unwanted, the tribunal found it was not related to disability. The refusal of travel support related to the respondent's travel policy and the failure to hear the grievance against Ms Dickason related to previous rejection and the claimant having already raised numerous grievances. The conduct did not have the purpose or effect of violating dignity or creating a hostile environment; the email was polite and simply provided an answer the claimant did not want.
The tribunal accepted there was a requirement to attend work (PCP1) and a practice of hearing grievances together (PCP2). PCP1 caused substantial disadvantage due to the claimant's head injury preventing driving. However, providing taxi payment was not a reasonable adjustment given Access to Work could provide this, the respondent offered alternative workplaces closer to home, and colleagues offered lifts. The claimant obstinately refused alternatives. PCP2 caused no substantial disadvantage; the claimant provided no credible evidence that hearing grievances together was stressful or disadvantageous. Hearing six grievances separately was unreasonable given delays and managerial changes.
Facts
The claimant was a Stock and Administration Manager at Tesco from 2003. In May 2023 he went on sick leave due to stress/anxiety relating to workplace restructuring. Shortly after, he suffered a serious head injury which prevented him from driving for 12 months. He requested financial assistance for travel to work (approximately £200 per week for taxis), which Tesco refused on the basis it was outside their travel policy and that Access to Work was available. The claimant also raised seven separate grievances between May 2023 and April 2024, which Tesco eventually decided to hear together in one meeting conducted by Mr Lumm in March 2024. The claimant was obstinate in refusing offers of lifts from colleagues, stating he did not want to 'make it easy for Tesco', and rejected offers to work at stores closer to his home.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. The head injury was accepted as a disability but anxiety/depression was not found to be a disability at the relevant times (June-September 2023 and May-June 2024) as the respondent could not reasonably have known it would last more than 12 months. The tribunal found no less favourable treatment or harassment related to disability. Crucially, the tribunal held that providing taxi payments was not a reasonable adjustment because: Access to Work existed for this purpose; Tesco offered alternative workplaces closer to home; colleagues offered lifts; and the claimant was obstinate in refusing alternatives. Hearing multiple grievances together caused no substantial disadvantage and was reasonable given the circumstances.
Practical note
Employers are not required to fund travel to and from work as a reasonable adjustment for disability where Access to Work is available and where reasonable alternatives such as closer workplaces or colleague lifts have been offered and refused by the employee.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2306206/2023
- Decision date
- 10 April 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Stock and Administration Manager
- Service
- 20 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No