Introduction
In the recent case of Halstead v J D Wetherspoons plc the Tribunal held that the Respondent acted ‘disproportionately to allegations’ of improper use of the staff discount policy and applied company policies in a standardised way, without considering the specific needs of the Claimant in light of his autism. The Tribunal upheld the Claimant’s claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments and awarded £25,000 in compensation.
Background
The Claimant began working for Wetherspoons in 2019 and remains employed as a kitchen porter. The Claimant dined at a Wetherspoons pub with his mother and five other family members. When paying the bill, the Claimant selected the option that applied the staff discount code to the entire bill, resulting in a total saving of £19.17.
A few days after the meal, the Claimant was informed that the shift manager wished to speak with him. During the meeting, the shift manager stated that the purpose was to investigate ‘a potential violation of the employee discount policy’. This meeting constituted the first investigation meeting. The Claimant confirmed that he had used the discount code for a meal involving more than three additional people. When informed that this breached the discount policy, he apologised and explained that he was unaware of the rule. The Claimant also explained that his mother had downloaded the MyJDW application on her mobile phone to access his rota. The shift manager described this as a data security breach. Again, the Claimant confirmed he was unaware of this. He informed the shift manager that he was autistic and made it clear that his mother would need to attend any formal meetings with him going forward. The Respondent filed a cursory Neurodiversity Plan on the same day.
The Claimant’s mother attended the second investigation meeting and explained that she accessed her son’s rota to help him plan his journeys to work. She also stated that, due to his autism, the Claimant would not read specific policies unless explicitly instructed to do so. The Claimant’s mother requested that senior management be consulted, as the situation was causing the Claimant significant stress and anxiety, and he had begun hiding in his room.
The Claimant was subsequently sent an invitation to a disciplinary hearing for gross misconduct, citing “dishonesty” and “abuse” of policy. He was informed that he could bring a work colleague or trade union representative, but no reference was made to his mother, nor were any reasonable adjustments offered. The Claimant’s mother contacted the Respondent to confirm the significant impact the situation was having on him and provided a doctor’s sick note. She later requested an occupational health report, which the Respondent agreed to obtain.
The Claimant and his mother were invited to a long-term absence meeting. However, his mother highlighted that the occupational health report should be obtained prior to the meeting. The Respondent accepted this and confirmed that the disciplinary hearing was on hold pending receipt of the report.
The Claimant’s mother submitted a grievance on his behalf. Again, the Respondent did not invite her to attend the grievance meeting. This meeting was later rearranged after the Claimant’s mother raised concerns.
The Respondent then invited the Claimant to a “some other substantial reason” hearing to discuss the breakdown in the working relationship and his reasons for not attending the long-term sick or grievance meetings. The Claimant’s mother stated that this was the first time the Respondent offered appropriate reasonable adjustments, including holding the meeting online, providing questions in advance, and allowing her to attend as his companion.
Tribunal Decision
The Respondent did not dispute that the Claimant was disabled and accepted that it had constructive knowledge of his disability. The Tribunal found that neither the Claimant nor his mother knew that the discount only applied to groups of four people or fewer. The Tribunal also found that, had the Claimant and his mother been aware of the policy, they would not have applied the discount. The Tribunal criticised the Respondent for its zero-tolerance approach, particularly given that the Claimant had not acted dishonestly.
The Tribunal commented that they did not understand the decision to suspend the Claimant during the investigation or the decision to progress to a disciplinary after the Claimant’s mother had explained the impact of his autism. The Tribunal further criticised the Respondent’s use of standard processes and procedures, noting that this placed the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage due to his autism. The Respondent used standard template letters and did not make reasonable adjustments until four months after the first investigation meeting. The Tribunal upheld the Claimant’s claims for failure to make reasonable adjustments.
Lessons for Employers
- Reasonable adjustments are not a ‘nice to have’, they are a legal requirement.
- Policies must be applied proportionately, with consideration given to employees’ individual circumstances.
- Avoid overreacting, context and intent matter.
How We Can Help
For further information, or to discuss the issues raised within this case, please contact us to speak to a member of our Employment Team.
