Claimant v Lidl Great Britain Limited

Multiple allegations against Mr Zabwala (comment about screen in January 2022, refusal to help with float in March 2022, aggressive comments in March 2022) and Mr Hannan (aggressive behaviour, swearing, hitting, shouting, calling claimant 'bum on a till', comparing to other workers, touching). Tribunal found most allegations against Mr Hannan not proved; those partially accepted (e.g. possible use of phrase 'bum on a till', touching, comments about other employees) did not meet definition of harassment as conduct not inherently offensive, lacked context, and not related to claimant's disabilities. Claims against Mr Zabwala were out of time and tribunal declined to extend time; even if in time, conduct found insufficiently serious to amount to harassment or not related to disability.

Claimant alleged less favourable treatment by Mr Zabwala (screen comment, refusal to help with float, aggressive comments in March 2022) and Mr Hannan (multiple allegations of aggressive conduct). Tribunal found claims against Mr Zabwala out of time and declined to extend. On merits, tribunal found no less favourable treatment: screen comment was trivial and made in passing; Mr Zabwala's comments in March 2022 related to performance concerns (probation already extended twice) not disability. For Mr Hannan allegations, tribunal found most conduct not proved; where partially accepted, no evidence it was less favourable treatment due to disability. No comparator evidence showing claimant treated worse than non-disabled employees.

Claimant's grievance of 11 March 2022 (complaining of disability discrimination and lack of reasonable adjustments) was accepted as a protected act. Claimant alleged detriments by Mr Hannan after grievance (aggressive behaviour, swearing, hitting, shouting, comparing to colleagues, calling 'bum on a till', touching, saying he was a liability). Tribunal found majority of alleged conduct not proved. Where conduct partially accepted, it did not amount to detriments (e.g. touching was innocuous, phrase 'bum on a till' not used as alleged). Crucially, no evidence that March 2022 grievance influenced Mr Hannan's behaviour—grievance was resolved swiftly and parties moved on. Causal link between protected act and alleged detriments not established.

Claimant alleged unfavourable treatment of reduction in hours from 15 per week to 4 per week from 15 August 2022 because he was 'no good at his job', arising from poor performance on shop floor due to disability. Tribunal found claimant had not proved respondent reduced his hours—change was agreed and signed by both parties, not imposed. No evidence respondent had performance concerns in late July/August 2022, no meetings recorded, no clear evidence of underperformance. Reduction therefore wholly unconnected to any underperformance and did not arise from any disability.

Three PCPs alleged: (1) requirement to work on shop floor, (2) requirement to count float money on till, (3) not giving time off for medical appointments. For PCP 1 (shop floor work and contact with cardboard exacerbating asthma), tribunal found no evidence this placed claimant at substantial disadvantage—no specific incidents documented, no complaints to Mr Hannan in WhatsApp messages, and requests to work on tills were mostly accommodated anyway. For PCP 2 (counting float), tribunal found difficulty was limited to reading TellerMate screen, not counting itself; claimant frequently worked tills so difficulty must have been accommodated; only one incident (5 March 2022 with Mr Zabwala) where help refused. No substantial disadvantage proved. For PCP 3 (time off for medical appointments), policy allowed time off if requested with 2-3 weeks' notice before rota published; if shorter notice, employee needed to arrange cover. Claimant failed to show his disabilities meant he couldn't give advance notice—evidence showed he regularly requested time off at last minute even for routine appointments, which was unrelated to disability. Time off was granted when requested.