Claimant v Arnold Clark Automobile Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that while the duty to make reasonable adjustments was engaged in respect of the first PCP (fixed working hours), the proposed adjustment (finishing one hour early three days a week) was not reasonable because it was not clear it would overcome the disadvantage and would have disrupted the respondent's operations significantly. In respect of the second PCP (flexible working policy and armed forces covenant), the tribunal found the duty was not engaged as no decision had been made refusing time off for therapy appointments and the claimant was not actually subjected to any disadvantage in this respect.
Facts
The claimant, a car valet with PTSD from his army service, worked fixed hours 8am to 5.30pm for the respondent. He requested flexible working to finish one hour early three days a week to attend the gym, which he used to manage his PTSD. The respondent refused, citing business needs as they had high volumes of cars (124-231 daily) to clean with a team of 6 valets and increased volumes in the afternoon. The claimant also alleged he was refused time off for therapy appointments, though no appointments had been arranged at the relevant time. He resigned on 30 August 2024 citing failure to make reasonable adjustments.
Decision
The tribunal found the duty to make reasonable adjustments was engaged regarding the fixed working hours PCP, but the proposed adjustment was not reasonable as there was insufficient evidence it would overcome the disadvantage and it would significantly disrupt the respondent's operations. For the second PCP regarding therapy appointments, the tribunal found the duty was not engaged as no decision refusing time off had actually been made and the claimant was not subjected to the disadvantage alleged. All claims were dismissed.
Practical note
An employer's refusal to implement a proposed reasonable adjustment can be justified where there is insufficient evidence the adjustment would overcome the disadvantage and where there is clear evidence of significant operational disruption to the business, particularly in high-volume operational environments.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 4104696/2024
- Decision date
- 14 March 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Car Valet
- Service
- 10 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep