Claimant v Castle Construction (Cheltenham) Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed because of identified health and safety failings uncovered during his absence, not because he made public interest disclosures. No protected disclosures were found to have been made or, if made, they were not the reason for dismissal.
The tribunal found no direct discrimination. The claimant was treated as he was because of conduct/performance issues, not because of his disabilities (Long Covid and visual impairment). A hypothetical non-disabled employee would have been treated the same way.
The tribunal found the unfavourable treatment (investigatory meetings, disciplinary process, dismissal) did not arise from the claimant's Long Covid. The process was triggered by identified health and safety failings, not his absence or disability-related matters.
The tribunal found that alleged PCPs either did not exist, did not cause substantial disadvantage, or reasonable adjustments were in fact offered (meetings by video/telephone/in writing, extended deadlines). The claimant was able to engage fully with the processes.
The tribunal found the alleged detriments (time limits, refusal of neutral venue, failure to investigate grievances fully, contact restrictions) were not caused by the protected acts. Treatment was motivated by volume/manner of grievances and the claimant's conduct, not the fact he raised discrimination allegations.
Facts
The claimant was employed as Health and Safety Manager from May 2020. He went off sick in August 2021 with Covid-19, which developed into Long Covid. During his absence, the respondent discovered multiple serious health and safety failings across their hotel and construction businesses, including failures in fire safety, legionella testing, and PAT testing. A disciplinary process was commenced in February 2022. The claimant raised multiple grievances (ultimately 14+) and allegations of discrimination. He was dismissed in March 2022 for gross misconduct. The claimant had Long Covid and visual impairment (loss of vision in right eye, partial loss in left).
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found the claimant was dismissed because of substantiated health and safety failures, not because of disability or protected disclosures. The tribunal found the respondent offered reasonable adjustments (meetings by video/phone/writing, extended deadlines) and the claimant was able to engage with processes. The volume and manner of grievances, not their content, explained any adverse treatment. The tribunal applied Martin v Devonshire Solicitors, finding the manner of conduct broke the causal chain for victimisation.
Practical note
An employer can fairly dismiss for serious health and safety failings discovered during sick leave, even where the employee has disabilities, provided the dismissal is genuinely motivated by the failings and reasonable adjustments are offered to enable engagement with disciplinary processes; the volume and manner of grievances can break the causal chain in victimisation claims.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1401847/2022
- Decision date
- 9 April 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 8
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- construction
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- Health and Safety Manager
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No