Claimant v Parker Hannafin Manufacturing Ltd

Tribunal found claimant failed to prove he suffered substantial disadvantage from shift changes or workstation moves, finding no credible evidence of meltdown, shutdown, or mental trauma. Claimant worked for over a decade without raising concerns and did not mention these impacts in his detailed 40-page witness statement. The tribunal also found respondent did not know and could not reasonably have known of the alleged disadvantages despite extensive engagement.

Regarding noise-cancelling headphones with audio, tribunal found claimant failed to prove substantial disadvantage of 'burnout' from background noise. Medical reports did not support need for headphones with audio input. Additionally, providing headphones with audio would be unreasonable due to high safety risk in a manufacturing environment with machinery, alarms, and recent fire incident. Respondent had already provided noise-cancelling headphones without audio and agreed to safe space arrangements.

Claim under s.80G ERA 1996 for failure to notify outcome of flexible working request within statutory decision period failed. Tribunal found claimant made compliant first application on 1 March 2023 which he chose to abandon. Under s.80F(4) ERA 1996 (as applicable at the time), only one application permitted per 12 months. The October 2023 application was within 9 months of first application and therefore claimant was not entitled to make it, meaning respondent had no duty to respond within decision period.