Network Rail Infrastructure Limited v Crawford
The first case we’d like to highlight this month is the Employment Appeal Tribunal decision in iForce Limited v Ms Woods which considered the issue of disability discrimination and whether unfavourable treatment can arise where an employee holds a mistaken belief.
In this case, Ms Wood was employed as a warehouse colleague. Her role required her to stand at one workstation, to which her work was delivered, and pack products before they were dispatched. Bay doors opened into the warehouses to allow vehicles to collect or offload goods. Changes were implemented by the company with the view to improving productivity. These changes meant colleagues were required to rotate across the workstations and follow the work rather than remaining stationary at one workstation for the work to come to them.
Ms Woods suffered osteoarthritis which is a degenerative condition and was considered as a disability for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. It was Ms Wood’s belief, which was supported by her GP, that cold weather (temperature and damp) worsened her condition. She therefore objected to working at the workstations nearest to the bay doors as she felt they would be colder and exacerbate her condition.
In response to this, the company conducted an investigation and concluded that, according to their thermometer readings, there was no material difference between the temperature and humidity across the warehouse regardless of the proximity of the workstation to the bay doors. As such, the company considered Ms Wood’s continued refusal to work at the end workstation unreasonable and she was issued with a final written warning (subsequently downgraded to a written warning on appeal).
Ms Wood alleged that this warning amounted to unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of her disability. She therefore pursued a disability discrimination claim through the tribunal.
The Employment Tribunal held that, although she wrongly believed there were differences in the temperature and humidity in the warehouse, her refusal to comply with the change of working practices was due to her belief it would adversely impact on her condition. As such, she succeeded in her claim.
However, on appeal the Employment Appeal Tribunal disagreed. It held that there was no basis for a causal link between Ms Wood’s disability and her mistaken belief that led her to refuse to accept the change in working practices. Whilst Ms Wood believed her condition may worsen if she was required to work at the end workstation, as she believed the temperature at that workstation was colder, this was not what the company were requiring her to do. The company’s findings showed that there was no material difference between the temperature at the workstations. As such, her claim failed.
The second case featured this month is the Court of Appeal decision in Network Rail Infrastructure Limited v Crawford which concerns whether compensatory rest breaks must be taken in one uninterrupted period or can instead be taken in shorter breaks over a period of time.
Mr Crawford was employed by National Rail as a signaller providing relief cover where necessary at five signal boxes, most of which were single-manned. He worked eight-hour shifts, Monday to Friday, starting at 6am, 2pm and 10pm. On Sunday, he worked two twelve-hour shifts starting at 6am and 6pm.
Due to the nature of his role, he was unable to take a continuous rest break of 20 minutes at any time during his shift. He was, however, permitted to take short breaks which collectively amounted to in excess of 20 minutes over the course of his shift. Mr Crawford alleged that this did not comply with the Working Time Regulations which provides for a minimum rest break of 20 minutes away from their workstation where a worker’s daily working time exceeds six hours.
The Employment Tribunal held that this arrangement was not in breach of the WTR, whereas the Employment Appeal Tribunal disagreed and held that discontinuous periods could not amount to compensatory rest. This decision was appealed to the Court of Appeal which considered whether discontinuous breaks could amount to compensatory rest.
The Court of Appeal held that discontinuous breaks could amount to compensatory rest for the purposes of legislation. The obligation was on the employer to provide “equivalent” rest, not identical rest, which should have the same value in terms of contributing towards the worker’s well-being. Indeed, the court could not see any reason why a single uninterrupted 20-minute break would always be better than, say, two 15-minute uninterrupted breaks. It concluded that different kinds of rest may be appropriate in different cases.
In other news, it has been reported that an Employment Tribunal has found that Mr Smith (if you recall, he was confirmed to be a worker of Pimlico Plumbers by the Supreme Court last year) has lost his claim for £74k in holiday pay as the claim was brought out of time. It is understood this has been appealed, so keep your eyes peeled and we will update you as and when we receive further updates.
