Mr I Stanley v The Village Bakery (Wrexham) Ltd

Hello everyone and thank you for joining us for another case of the week. Last week we had our monthly newsletter for June which had features on the general election, a real life Walter Mitty in Northamptonshire Police and a person who had been paid a monthly salary for two years without working. For anyone that missed it, you can find it here.

Separately, today marks the outcome of the General Election 2024, at the time of writing it looks like Labour are on course for a win and this will mean significant changes to UK employment law and HR practices. Thank you to everyone who has already signed up to our separate election update list. For anyone else looking to find out what changes will be taking effect please sign up here. This week we are looking at the Employment Tribunal claim of Mr I Stanley v The Village Bakery (Wrexham) Ltd. Whilst not a binding precedent, it does have some useful lessons for HR.

Background

The Respondent is a family bakery business based in North Wales, employing around 950 employees across four sites and producing a range of baked goods for the retail market.

The Claimant is registered blind and although he has some vision, it is severely impaired. He can see at 6 metres what someone with standard vision could see from 25 metres away.

For eighteen years, the Claimant worked at another food manufacturer as a waste coordinator/packer where he packed cereal boxes into larger boxes for distribution and moved large bags a short distance. He had to read paperwork, which was enlarged to assist him, and he used an adapted computer. He rarely needed support in that role as he was familiar with the job. Due to a lack of shifts, he decided to seek new employment.

The Claimant applied for a role as a night shift production operative at the Respondent’s bakery. Tasks of the job included separating bread, collecting bread, and placing it in trays. The Claimant stated he spent around two hours on the ‘hands-on’ assessment which he passed and was offered employment, subject to passing a medical assessment and providing satisfactory references.

The Claimant’s contract of employment stated he was subject to a three-month probationary period. The Respondent reserved the right to extend the probationary period and not apply its Disciplinary Procedure during this time. This is common practice for any short serving employee under 103 weeks’ service and who do not qualify for unfair dismissal rights.

Background

The Respondent is a family bakery business based in North Wales, employing around 950 employees across four sites and producing a range of baked goods for the retail market.

The Claimant is registered blind and although he has some vision, it is severely impaired. He can see at 6 metres what someone with standard vision could see from 25 metres away.

For eighteen years, the Claimant worked at another food manufacturer as a waste coordinator/packer where he packed cereal boxes into larger boxes for distribution and moved large bags a short distance. He had to read paperwork, which was enlarged to assist him, and he used an adapted computer. He rarely needed support in that role as he was familiar with the job. Due to a lack of shifts, he decided to seek new employment.

The Claimant applied for a role as a night shift production operative at the Respondent’s bakery. Tasks of the job included separating bread, collecting bread, and placing it in trays. The Claimant stated he spent around two hours on the ‘hands-on’ assessment which he passed and was offered employment, subject to passing a medical assessment and providing satisfactory references.

The Claimant’s contract of employment stated he was subject to a three-month probationary period. The Respondent reserved the right to extend the probationary period and not apply its Disciplinary Procedure during this time. This is common practice for any short serving employee under 103 weeks’ service and who do not qualify for unfair dismissal rights.

Tribunal

The Tribunal upheld his claims stating, “We accept that in principle the aims relied on were capable of being legitimate aims, but we were only persuaded that efficient production, was in the Respondent’s mind when dismissing the claimant.”

The Tribunal found that the Respondent knew or should have known about the Claimant’s substantial disadvantage due to his disability and the additional time he needed to achieve the required standards. The lack of accommodation and understanding put the Claimant at a significant disadvantage and failed to adequately accommodate the Claimant and help him adjust to his role and that he should have been given more time to familiarise himself with the factory layout and procedures.

The bakery manager argued that the company could not afford to employ someone to assist the Claimant, such as a ‘buddy’, even on a short-term basis. This was rejected by the tribunal, which stated, “Even if this adjustment had a significant cost associated with it, which we were not persuaded that it would, it may still have been cost-effective in overall terms – for example, compared with the costs of slowing down production and paying someone to take on half of the Claimant’s workload, which the Respondent appears to have been undertaking.”

The Tribunal also dismissed the argument that health and safety concerns were valid, as the Claimant had been allowed to work for six weeks without a health and safety assessment.

Takeaway Points

What is a ‘reasonable’ adjustment depends on each case. Employers should thoroughly assess whether the job role is suitable for a disabled employee, considering the nature of their disability and the specific job requirements.

Reasonable adjustments could include modifications to the work environment, providing assistive tools or devices, or altering work patterns. In this case, adjustments like providing readable thermometers would have been reasonable.

Employers should discuss with the employee their needs and what adjustments can be made to assist them. Regular reviews and adjustments can prevent performance issues and ensure the employee can work effectively. Maintain open and regular communication with disabled employees to discuss any challenges they face and provide timely feedback on their performance. It is also worth noting that a larger employer will likely have a higher expectations by the Tribunal to provide adjustments due to its size and resources. In this case the bakery employed nearly 1,000 people so was larger than the average family business.

If performance issues arise, employers should proactively seek to understand if they are related to the disability and what further adjustments or support might be needed. Providing comprehensive training and support, especially during the initial period of employment, is crucial. Fostering an inclusive workplace culture where disabilities are understood and accommodated helps in supporting disabled employees to perform their roles effectively. However, if there are legitimate concerns about health and safety or productivity due to a health condition employers should take all reasonable steps, including risk assessments!

Cases involving failed probation reviews may also become more common post election as Labour seek to reduce qualifying service for unfair dismissal from 103 weeks, to a day one right after any contractual probationary period. This will mean HR need to ensure probationary clauses and reviews are reviewed and done consistently. For more updates about the election, including potential seminars, please click here.

If you or someone you know are dealing with a similar issue, please contact us for further assistance.