Mr P Hunt v RT Keedwell Group Ltd: 2402807/2021
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 September 2023 |
| Date | 28 September 2023 |
| Citation | 2402807/2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 22 August 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Disability Discrimination |
Case No: 2402807/2021
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr P Hunt
Respondent: RT Keedwell Group Ltd
Heard at: Manchester
On: 24-28 April 2023 (and 15 June 2023 in Chambers)
Before: Employment Judge Eeley
Dr H Vahramian
Mr D Wilson
Representation
Claimant: Mrs J Walsh, solicitor (claimant’s daughter)
Respondent: Mr A Roberts, counsel
RESERVED JUDGMENT
1. The claimant’s claim of protected disclosure detriment (section 47B
Employment Rights Act 1996) is not well founded and is dismissed.
2. The claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal is not well founded and is
dismissed.
3. The claimant’s claim of discrimination because of something arising from
disability (section 15 Equality Act 2010) fails and is dismissed.
4. The claimant’s claim of indirect disability discrimination (section 19
Equality Act 2010) fails and is dismissed.
5. The claimant’s claim that the respondent failed to make reasonable
adjustments fails and is dismissed (sections 20/21 Equality Act 2010).
6. The claimant’s claim of disability related harassment (section 26 Equality
Act 2010) fails and is dismissed.)
7. The claimant’s claim of victimisation (section 27 Equality Act 2010) fails
and is dismissed.
Case No: 2402807/2021
8. The claimant’s claim of wrongful dismissal fails and is dismissed.
9. The claimant’s claim of unauthorised deductions from wages fails and is
dismissed.
10. The claimant’s application for compensation for breach of the duty to
provide written particulars of employment pursuant to section 38
Employment Act 2002 is refused on the basis that the claimant has not
succeeded in one of the claims set out in Schedule 5 to the 2002 Act.
REASONS
Background
1. By a claim form presented on 8 April 2021 the claimant brought various
complaints of disability discrimination, victimisation, protected disclosure
detriment and constructive dismissal, constructive unfair dismissal,
constructive wrongful dismissal and unauthorised deductions from wages
arising out of his employment with the respondent.
2. For the purposes of determining the claims, the Tribunal had regard to the
contents of an agreed hearing bundle which contained 735 pages. We
read those documents to which we were referred by the parties. Numbers
appearing in square brackets are references to pages within the hearing
bundle, unless otherwise indicated.
3. We received written witness statements from:
a. The claimant, Philip Hunt.
b. Edith Hunt, the claimant’s wife.
c. Andrew Evans, Personal and Compliance Director for the respondent
at the material time.
We also heard oral evidence from the claimant and Mr Evans. Mrs Hunt
was not cross examined.
4. At the start of the hearing (and in the course of confirming an agreed list
of issues with the parties) the Tribunal was called upon to determine the
admissibility of certain evidence and to determine an application to amend
the claim. As a result, the witness statement of James Hunt was excluded
from our consideration as it was, in effect, relied upon as expert evidence
without the necessary permission having been obtained and the
appropriate procedures having been adopted. Notwithstanding that
decision, the Tribunal had regard to paragraphs 3, 5, 7 and 12 of Mr Evans’
supplemental witness statement which were adduced on the basis that
they were of wider relevance than simply being a response to the
statement of James Hunt. The Tribunal refused the claimant permission to
add a complaint of section 13 direct discrimination. Oral reasons having
Case No: 2402807/2021
already been given for those preliminary determinations we do not repeat
the Tribunal’s reasons for those decisions herein.
5. The Tribunal received a written skeleton argument on behalf of the
respondent and heard oral closing submissions on behalf of both parties,
for which we were grateful.
6. The agreed list of issues for the Tribunal to determine is set out as an
Annex at the end of this reserved decision and reasons.
Findings of fact
7. The respondent is a national haulage provider and a family owned
business. It is one of the largest independent haulage companies and
operates through nine depots. The respondent company has three
separate divisions: General Haulage; Brick and Block; and Pallet
Forwarding. The respondent company had an average turnover of £50
million and anywhere between 400 and 500 employees at any given point
in time.
8. The claimant was employed as an HGV driver, known colloquially within
the business as a “Tramper”. He had had a long career within the sector
and had previously owned his own HGV business. He started in the
respondent’ General Haulage division. He then moved to work in Brick and
Block in February 2020. This mainly involved collecting breeze blocks from
a customer’s factory and delivering those blocks direct to building sites or
to building merchants for onward sale. The Brick and Block operation was
operated out of the respondent’s depots in Haydock, St Helens and
Hensall (Goole.) The vehicles used in the Brick and Block operation are
either fitted with a crane (operated by the driver to offload the blocks), or
are wagons, designed to carry such a load. In the case of the latter
wagons, the blocks are offloaded by a specialist on-site crane, operated
by the customer who was taking the delivery.
9. The claimant worked out of the Haydock depot. This was his ‘Home Depot.’
In the normal course of employment the claimant had his own designated
vehicle. This meant that he did not have to share the driver’s cab with other
members of staff. It was used exclusively by him. The claimant usually
worked from Monday to Friday, full-time. The claimant would be away from
home for most of the working week. He lived and slept in the cab whilst
away from home. It was generally a self-sufficient existence. He had a
fridge, kettle and camping stove supplied by himself. He only tended to
use service stations to buy provisions for the occasional meal and to use
the toilet and hygiene facilities. He also used truck stops where necessary
and available. Those facilities were not accessible to the general public but
were used by Trampers (such as himself) from various companies
travelling up and down the country. At the end of the working week he
would return to the Home Depot (Haydock) on a Friday. The claimant was
known as a conscientious employee and was often willing to undertake
overtime at the request of the respondent.
To continue reading
Request your trial