Miss L Watkins v Wickes Building Supplies Ltd: 1601096/2019
| Judgment Date | 01 June 2021 |
| Citation | 1601096/2019 |
| Published date | 09 June 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Disability Discrimination |
Case No: 1601096 / 2019
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Miss L Watkins
Respondent: Wickes Building Supplies Limited
Heard at: Cardiff (CVP) On: 29-31 March 2021 and
1 June 2021 (Chambers)
Before: Employment Judge Brace
Mr David Ryan
Mrs Rhian Hartwell
Representation
Claimant: Mr Leong (Solicitor)
Respondent: Mr Foster (Employment Consultant)
RESERVED JUDGMENT
It is the unanimous judgment of the tribunal that the Claimant was unfairly
dismissed by the Respondent and that her claims of discrimination arising from
disability (section 15 Equality Act 2010) and failure to make reasonable
adjustments (section 20/21 Equality Act 2010) were also well founded and
succeed.
WRITTEN REASONS
Preliminary Matters
1. The claims before this tribunal were ones of unfair dismissal,
discrimination arising from disability and failure to comply with the duty to
make reasonable adjustments. That the Claimant was a disabled person
at the relevant time, by reason of her depression and autism spectrum
disorder has been conceded by the Respondent. Likewise, that the
Case No: 1601096 / 2019
Respondent had, at all material times, knowledge of disability was also not
an issue in dispute.
2. There was an issue at the outset of the hearing with regard to whether or
not time limits for making an unfair dismissal claim was in issue, the
Respondent initially indicating that the Judge at the preliminary hearing on
13 February 2020 had allowed the Claimant’s application to her amend
her claim but subject to time issues.
3. After consideration by the Tribunal of the Early Conciliation dates (21 May
2109 – 4 July 2019) and the Respondent accepting that the ET3 reflected
agreement to the effective date of termination of 26 August 2019, it was
conceded by the Respondent that the claim was brought in time and
jurisdiction was not a live issue.
4. After adjourning for the parties to agree the list of issues and considering
the same with the parties it was agreed that the issues for determination
by the Tribunal were as follows:
5. With regard to unfair dismissal
a. What was the reason or principal reason for dismissal?
b. Was it a potentially fair reason? The Respondent relies on some
other substantial reason of a kind justifying dismissal or in the
alternative, redundancy as the potentially fair reason for dismissal
c. Did the respondent act reasonably in all the circumstances in
treating it as a sufficient reason to dismiss the claimant?
6. With regard to discrimination arising from disability the issues are as
follows:
a. Did the Respondent treat the Claimant unfavourably by
i. relieving the Claimant of one of her shifts after she declined
the option of working Saturdays
ii. dismissal
b. Did the inability to work Saturdays arise in consequence of the
Claimant’s disability.
c. Was the unfavourable treatment because of any of those things: did
the Respondent relieve the Claimant of one of her shifts and /or
dismiss the Claimant because of the Claimant’s inability to work
Saturdays
d. Was the treatment a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate
aim? The Respondent says its aims were ensuring that the salary
budget and quotas of the Newport branch were not exceeded.
To continue reading
Request your trial