Mrs Maria Yorke v GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited: 2503178/2018
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 August 2019 |
| Citation | 2503178/2018 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 31 October 2019 |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal |
Case Number: 2503178/2018
1
THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mrs Maria Yorke
Respondent: GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited
Heard at: North Shields Hearing Centre On: 29, 30 and 31 May 2019
with deliberations on 5 July 2019
Before: Employment Judge Morris
Members: Ms BG Kirby
Mr L Brown
Representation:
Claimant: Mr D Robinson-Young of Counsel
Respondent: Mr D Mitchell of Counsel
RESERVED JUDGMENT
The majority judgment of the Employment Tribunal is as follows:
1. The claimant’s complaint that the respondent unlawfully discriminated against her
by treating her unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of her
disability contrary to sections 15 and 39 of the Equality Act 2010 is not well-
founded and is dismissed.
2. The claimant’s complaint that, contrary to section 21 of the Equality Act 2010, the
respondent failed to comply with its duty under section 20 of that Act to make
adjustments is not well-founded and is dismissed.
3. The claimant’s complaint that her dismissal by the respondent was unfair, being
contrary to sections 94 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is not well-
founded and is dismissed.
Case Number: 2503178/2018
2
REASONS
Representation and evidence
1. The claimant was represented by Mr D Robinson-Young of Counsel who called
the claimant to give evidence.
2. The respondent was represented by Mr D Mitchell of Counsel who called three
employees of the respondent to give evidence on its behalf as follows: Mr G
Raine, First Line Leader; Mr S Hodgson, Site Engineering Operations Manager;
Ms S Angus, Strategy and Change Business Director.
3. The Tribunal also had before it an agreed bundle of documents, which was added
to at the commencement of the hearing, comprising some 365 pages.
The claimant’s complaints
4. The claimant's complaints are as follows:
4.1 The respondent had treated her unfavourably because of something
arising in consequence of her disability as described in section 15 of the
Equality Act 2010 (“the 2010 Act”), that unfavourable treatment being
dismissing her and subjecting her to other detriments contrary to sections
39(2)(c) and (d) of that Act respectively.
4.2 A failure on the part of the respondent, contrary to section 21 of the 2010
Act, to comply with the duty to make adjustments imposed upon it by
section 20 of that Act.
4.3 Her dismissal by the respondent was unfair contrary to sections 94 and 98
of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“the 1996 Act”).
The issues
5. Pursuant to the orders of the Employment Tribunal arising from a telephone
private preliminary hearing conducted on 11 December 2018 the parties had
agreed a list of issues that are included at the front of the bundle of documents
referred to above. Those being agreed issues and that list being a matter of
record, it is not necessary to set them out fully in these Reasons; they will be
addressed in our consideration below. Suffice is to say they address the three
complaints of the claimant (summarised as discrimination arising from disability,
failure to make reasonable adjustments and unfair dismissal) and add an
additional element of jurisdiction as to whether (in accordance with section 123 of
the 2010 Act) the claimant’s discrimination claims have been brought within three
months starting with the date of the act to which the complaint relates, whether
the alleged conduct extended over a period so as to be treated as having being
done at the end of the period and, if not, whether it was just and equitable to
extend time and if so for what period.
Case Number: 2503178/2018
3
6. Finally, there is the issue of remedy. Early on the morning of the first day of the
hearing, however, when in the context of timetabling the Employment Judge
referred to the issue of remedy, the representatives remarked that there had been
discussions between their respective instructing solicitors and that, given that the
claimant had yet to finalise details of pension loss, the hearing should be limited to
liability only. That was not the Employment Judge’s interpretation of the Summary
and Orders arising from the preliminary hearing referred to above that refer to the
hearing in this claim being “completed within three days” and requires a detailed
statement of remedy from the claimant to be submitted on or before 18 January
2019. Nevertheless, given that it did appear unrealistic to expect the Tribunal to
determine liability, announce its judgment and then move on (if necessary) to
consider remedy within the three days allocated, it was agreed that this hearing
should be restricted to determining liability only with remedy being addressed, if
necessary, at a later date.
Consideration and findings of fact
7 Having taken into consideration all the relevant evidence before the Tribunal
(documentary and oral), the submissions made on behalf of the parties at the
hearing and the relevant statutory and case law, some of which was referred to by
the representatives (notwithstanding the fact that, in the pursuit of some
conciseness, every aspect might not be specifically mentioned below), the
Tribunal records the following facts either as agreed between the parties or found
by the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities.
7.1 The respondent is a well-known company in the pharmaceutical sector of
some considerable size and significant resources including a dedicated
human resources department (“HR”). One of its sites, which is said to be
one of its largest in the world, is at Barnard Castle at which some twelve-
hundred people are employed. That site focuses on four business areas:
Sterile; Derms; Liquid and Cephalosporins. The claimant worked in Derms.
7.2 The claimant was employed at that site from 20 November 1989 until her
employment was terminated on 12 October 2018 in accordance with to the
respondent’s Disability and/or Long-Term Ill Health in the Workplace
Policy (“the Disability Policy”) (72). She was employed as a Mover. Her
duties included such matters as printing/collating batch documentation,
printing labels, attending meetings, ordering materials from the
warehouse, moving pallets, reconciling orders, checking documentation
and liaison with other employees. It was, however, quite a physical role
and included opening heavy doors, handling heavy materials, pallets and
the compulsory wearing of safety shoes; although there were alternative
safety shoes that were lighter on the feet that were offered to employees
with diabetes but which the claimant had never requested. Mr Hodgson’s
estimate (which was not challenged) was that the Mover role was
approximately 70% physical with the remaining 30% relating to
administrative tasks such as document checking, reporting on quality
issues and checking samples. The general job description is at page 66.
7.3 The claimant suffers from rheumatoid arthritis. She was first experienced
symptoms which in March 2016 and then given a formal diagnosis in June
To continue reading
Request your trial