Claimant v London United Busways Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant relied on claustrophobia for the office adjustment, but claustrophobia was not a disability within the meaning of the Equality Act at the relevant time. Regarding the chair, the tribunal found that sciatica was a disability but the existing chair did not put the claimant at a substantial disadvantage because he had a back support, a risk assessment had been conducted, and observation showed he was comfortable. Both claims were also out of time as the decisions were made by 30 June 2022 and 22 April 2022 respectively, more than three months before ACAS early conciliation began.
The tribunal found that the claimant and his witness were not specific about the words used by Mr Wilson during the meeting on 22 April 2022, and the words that were remembered appeared innocuous. The tribunal was not persuaded that Mr Wilson spoke to the claimant in an unprofessional manner. Further, the tribunal found it was reasonable for the respondent to conduct a risk assessment and it was not reasonable for the claimant to take offence either at what was said, how it was said, or the fact that a risk assessment was being carried out. The claim was also out of time.
Facts
Mr Knight, a bus driver employed since October 2018, was elected union representative in April 2022. He raised a grievance about the small, windowless office allocated to him for union duties, claiming it triggered his claustrophobia. He also requested a special chair for sciatica. A risk assessment was conducted by the Head of Health and Safety, Mr Wilson, on 22 April 2022, which the claimant felt was conducted in an unprofessional manner. His grievance was not upheld in June 2022, though he was eventually allocated the larger office he had requested following his appeal in February 2023.
Decision
The tribunal found that sciatica was a disability but claustrophobia, depression, and hypertension were not disabilities within the meaning of the Equality Act at the relevant time. Both the reasonable adjustment claims (for a larger office and a special chair) failed because claustrophobia was not established as a disability and the existing chair did not place the claimant at a substantial disadvantage. The harassment claim also failed as the tribunal was not persuaded Mr Wilson spoke unprofessionally or that it was reasonable for the claimant to take offence at the risk assessment. All claims were also out of time and the tribunal declined to extend time on a just and equitable basis.
Practical note
A claimant must prove disability with particularity, including substantial adverse effects on normal day-to-day activities, and must bring claims within the statutory time limits; being a union representative with access to advice will weigh against extending time on just and equitable grounds without evidence explaining the delay.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3300085/2023
- Decision date
- 12 November 2024
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- transport
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Bus driver / Union representative
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No