Mrs S Chatterjee v Royal Mail Group Ltd: 3303640/2024
JUDGMENT
The claim of disability discrimination is dismissed.REASONS
[1]This is a claim of disability discrimination.[2]The Respondent accepts that at all material times the Claimant was a disabled person within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010 (EqA) by reason of a back condition.[3]At a Case Management Preliminary Hearing (CMPH) on 18 September 2024 the complaint was identified as one of discrimination arising from disability pursuant to s.15 EqA. The issues were identified as being:(i) Did the Respondent treat the Claimant unfavourably by transferring her to the Regional Redeployment Programme on or about 12 October 2023?(ii) Did the following things arise in consequence of the Claimant’s disability? (a) She was unable to carry out heavy duties; 1 of 7 (b) She was working in the letter room on lighter duties.(iii) Was the unfavourable treatment because of either of those things?(iv) If so, was the unfavourable treatment a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim?[4]The Claimant was informed that if she wished to bring any other claims of discrimination arising from disability or a claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments she had to write to the Tribunal and the Respondent by 18 October 2024 with particulars of those complaints and the Respondent was required to inform the Claimant and the Tribunal by 30 October 2024 whether it considered the Claimant needed to make an application to amend (see, in particular, paragraph 9 of the record of the CMPH). In the event the parties agreed between themselves an extension of 14 days to that time frame, so that the Respondent should have been informed of any such further complaints by 1 November 2024.[5]No such notification from the Claimant having been received, the Respondent filed an amended grounds of response on 2 April 2025.[6]On 16 December 2025 the Claimant served her witness statement on the Respondent. An addendum to that statement contained “Further Information Provided Pursuant to paragraph 9 of the Case Management Order”. It contained a purported complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments, namely that the Respondent had operated a provision, criterion or practice of displacing the Claimant from her adjusted role in the letter area and placing her into the Regional Redeployment Programme, despite the adjusted role continuing to exist, which placed her at a substantial disadvantage. It also contained other complaints of unfavourable treatment arising from disability, namely on 12 October 2023 being told she had no meaningful work and was being “sacked”, being directed to work at a delivery office and being offered unsuitable roles.[7]At the outset of the hearing, the Tribunal treated the addendum to the Claimant’s witness statement as an application to amend her claim and, having heard representations from both parties, rejected that application for reasons given orally to the parties at the time. (Written reasons for that decision will not be provided unless a written request for them is received by the Tribunal within 14 days of the sending of this judgment.)[8]The case therefore proceeded on the basis identified at the CMPH on 18 September 2024.[9]The Tribunal heard evidence from the Claimant, and was referred to statements of Katherine Wilkinson, Paul Bosworth (Area Processing Representative SMMC) and Luke Redding (Early Shift CWU Rep), and for the Respondent, from Katarzyna Koczela (KK), Productions Supply Manager at South Midlands Mail Centre, and Emma Edmunds (EE), Early Shift Manager at the National Parcel Hub. We were also referred to two bundles of documents.[10]On the basis of that evidence, we make the following findings of fact. Facts 2 of 7Facts
[11]On 22 November 2010 the Claimant commenced employment with the Respondent working in the South Midlands Mail Centre (SMMC).[12]Between 1 March and 18 May 2022, she was on long-term sickness absence for a variety of reasons that included her back condition.[13]In September 2022 she returned to work in manual letter sorting, which did not involve any heavy lifting or walking and she could alternate between sitting and standing. She worked 20 hours per week sorting letters along with other members of staff.[14]In about December 2022 there was a “revision” in SMMC. Revisions are conducted most years and are a process whereby duties are reviewed against work volumes and are then amended if necessary.[15]On this occasion the revision was nationwide and involved major changes meaning that most if not all employees in the SMMC were affected. In effect duties were withdrawn wholescale, reassessed and reallocated. Generally speaking, the Respondent has experienced a decline in the business of letters while needing more people to work on parcels, and as part of the revision in SMMC the Respondent came to the view that there was no longer enough work in manual letter sorting for the ten employees (including the Claimant) who were carrying out that work to continue working their contracted hours.[16]As a result of the revision the Respondent therefore put into action a policy agreed with the Communications Workers Union (CWU) called the Managing Surplus Framework, which applies in all cases where a surplus situation is expected to occur with the potential for redundancies. The key principles set out in that policy include the principle that the emphasis of the policy is that suitable alternative employment will be offered to surplus employees wherever possible with the priority being to maximize their placement into vacancies within the Royal Mail Group using a redeployment process. The policy further states that in order to achieve this a number of policies have been developed which include allowing employees to revert to a lower grade or to work less hours.[17]In that latter respect it was determined at SMMC that all staff contracted to work 25 hours or less would be offered 12 hours work while all those contracted to work more than 25 hours would be offered 24 hours. Further, the roles of individuals with disabilities, such as the Claimant, were ring-fenced. Accordingly, pursuant to the policy the Claimant was offered the same role of manual letter sorting on reduced hours of 12 hours per week which included working on a Saturday. Two other employees who also worked less than 25 hours per week in manual letter sorting (namely 20 hours and 16 hours respectively) were offered similarly reduced hours of 12 hours per week.[18]The Claimant declined the offer because it was not enough hours for her, which meant she became a “displaced” employee. A list of all available vacancies was made available to displaced staff (including the Claimant) on the staff notice board. Further, the Claimant was offered a one-to-one meeting with KK but declined it. In this respect the CWU was unhappy with the consequences of the revision and were advising members not to attend one-to-one meetings.[19]Between 31 January and 10 February 2023, the Claimant was absent from work due to stress. 3 of 7[20]In February 2023 she was referred to Occupational Health (OH) and an OH report was produced on 21 February 2023 advising she was fit to work with adjustments, which included avoiding repetitive bending tasks, heavy manual handling activities and pushing/pulling against weight, along with regular breaks and a stress risk assessment. She returned to work initially at 50% of her hours and built up to 100 % of her hours over a 4-week period. At this time, she continued to be accommodated in manual letter sorting and was still working 20 hours per week while attempts were made to find her a suitable permanent role.[21]During this period, she had meetings with KK (and her CWU representative) at which she was shown the list of available vacancies in SMMC and was encouraged to apply for any she believed to be suitable.[22]On 6 October 2023 the Claimant was given a letter advising that since a vacancy in the SMMC had not been found, she would be transferred to the Regional Redeployment Programme (RRP) from 12 October 2023. The letter stated that: “The [RRP] supports individuals who are displaced, keeping them engaged in suitable and meaningful work, whilst also providing resources and dedicated time to resolve the situation for the longer term…During your time working in the [RRP] you will spend a minimum of two days per week (pro rata as appropriate) searching for suitable alternative roles and will be given support, guidance, and the tools and equipment needed to do this…For the remainder of your duty time, we will allocate meaningful work for you to do, that may involve covering absence across the pipelines roles in both Processing and Delivery or other meaningful work as deemed appropriate by the Pipeline Redeployment Manager. The tasks will be short term temporary tasks, and you will have an opportunity to raise any concerns or issues you may have with a particular allocation as it is made. As in all other areas, we will fully consider any adjustments needed, training and safety requirements…You will have regular 121s with your new Manager who will continually review your situation and discuss resolutions with you, including suitable internal vacancies”.[23]The Claimant’s Pipeline Redeployment Manager was EE, and the Claimant was invited to an induction meeting with her on 12 October 2023. The Claimant refused to attend the meeting.[24]On 16 October 2023 KK had a final one-to-one meeting with the Claimant and her CWU representative. The meeting records that the Claimant was offered a 12-hour duty which had been ringfenced for her, but that she had refused it on the grounds it would mean a drop in hours which she could not afford as well as not being able to work Saturdays due to childcare. It further records the Claimant asking why she was considered to be displaced if there was still meaningful work in manual letter sorting and saying that her personal circumstances, namely the care of her disabled child, were not being considered. The notes further record the options available as being voluntary redundancy, working 22-hrs per week on a late shift, 2 x 10 hours roles on a weekend shift which were not suitable due to childcare, before stating “I have also offered [the Claimant] a 20-hr duty in the [Leicester] delivery office which 4 of 7 [the Claimant] could not accept due to both childcare and travel and her personal health as well”. At the meeting it was made clear that if those options were not suitable for her, she would be placed in the RRD.[25]In her evidence to the Tribunal, when asked about the role in the Leicester office the Claimant said it was not suitable because of the cost of driving the longer distance to Leicester and the childcare implications of being further away from her disabled child. Notably, the Claimant did not at any point suggest that the Leicester role was unsuitable because of her disability or because driving to Leicester would have been difficult because of her disability. On the basis of the evidence in the bundle and the oral evidence at the hearing, we find the reason why the Claimant did not consider any of the suggested roles to be suitable was because of financial reasons (either the hours were not long enough or the journey cost was disproportionate) and/or her childcare responsibilities for her disabled child, and not because of her own disability.[26]On 19 October 2023 the Pipeline Redeployment Team Leader, Tony Lord, confirmed by letter to the Claimant that she would be transferred to the RRP on 8 November 2023.[27]The Claimant then indicated that she wished to take voluntary redundancy and therefore redeployment options were paused.[28]On 19 December 2023 the Claimant stated she no longer wished to proceed with voluntary redundancy and on 15 January 2024 she was signed off work on grounds of work-related stress and back problem.[29]On 13 March 2024 EE had a meeting with the Claimant her CWU representative to discuss her return to work.[30]The Claimant was referred to OH and an OH report was produced on 14 March 2024, which advised that the Claimant was fit to make an immediate return to work without any adjustments.[31]On 9 April 2024 and 19 April 2024 EE discussed vacant duties with the Claimant.[32]On or about 16 April 2024 the Claimant applied for a new full-time duty working on the Large Parcel Conveyor, lifting large parcels onto the conveyor. This was a more physical role than she had been doing and was also full-time, but EE said the Claimant had told her at a back to work meeting on 8 May 2024 that she felt capable of doing more strenuous tasks than she had done previously and had been getting some injections in her back to relieve her pain which had been helping. We accept this evidence. A workstations assessment was completed on 29 May 2024 and refers to the Claimant having received steroid injections for her back, nerve block and physiotherapy and that she had been discharged from the care of her specialist and was awaiting further physiotherapy. No adjustments were recommended and it was assessed that the role was suitable for the Claimant’s then current condition.[33]The Claimant’s new duty commenced on 17 June 2024. She stayed in that duty for approximately one year and at the time of this Tribunal hearing remained employed by the Respondent, working a late shift in the special delivery area. Conclusions 5 of 7Conclusions
[34]Section 15(1) EqA provides: (1) A person (A) discriminates against a disabled person (B) if – (a) A treats B unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of B’s disability, and (b) A cannot show that the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.[35]In this case the unfavourable treatment relied upon is the Claimant being transferred to the RRP. Her case is that the treatment was unfavourable because she wanted to stay in her old role in manual letter sorting working 20 hours and says that she should have been allowed to do so because of her disability.[36]However, we find it difficult to see how being transferred to the RRP was disadvantageous to the Claimant. Indeed, it was advantageous to her. The purpose of the RRP was to find suitable roles for displaced employees in order to avoid redundancies, with considerable management time and resources devoted to that purpose. The Claimant was transferred onto the RRP because she had been unable to find a role at SMMC she considered suitable, and by being so transferred onto the RRP was able to find a full-time role and remain employed by the Respondent. Although she referred to the names of a couple of people she thought might have been permitted to stay in manual letter sorting in a supernumerary capacity that suggestion was strongly denied by KK, and there was no evidence before us that such an option was made available to any employee. Accordingly, the fact that the Claimant would have preferred to stay in her old role working 20 hours in a supernumerary capacity rather than transfer to the RRP is not the correct test; treatment that in the circumstances was advantageous cannot be said to be unfavourable because it was a less advantageous option than one which the Claimant wanted to exist but didn’t.[37]For the sake of completeness, we note that the reduction of the Claimant’s hours and the change to her working days pursuant to the revision may well have amounted to unfavourable treatment (although this was nothing to do with her disability), however the fact of her being transferred to the RRP was not, and we therefore find the claim under s.15 EqA fails at the first hurdle.[38]However, we have gone on to consider the next limb of the text, namely, whether if being transferred to the RRP did amount to unfavourable treatment this was because of something arising in consequence of the Claimant’s disability.[39]In this respect the matters the Claimant relies on as arising in consequence of her disability are(i) being unable to carry out heavy duties and(ii) working in the letter room on lighter duties, and the Respondent accepts that they did so arise (see paragraph 14 of the amended response).[40]However, the Claimant was not transferred onto the RRP because of them (or either of them). She wasn’t transferred onto the RRP because she was working in the letter room and/or because she was working light duties, she was transferred onto the RRP because following the revision – which applied to the whole of SMMC – she became a displaced employee who was unable to find a 6 of 7 suitable role in SMMC. There was no evidence of there being any particular correlation between those employees who worked in the letter room and those employees who were transferred onto the RRP. Also, the Claimant wasn’t transferred onto the RRP because she was unable to carry out heavy duties. It is true that the Claimant was transferred onto the RRP because she wasn’t able to find a suitable role in the SMMC, but the reasons why the roles she was offered were not suitable were because they were either not financially viable for her – because the hours were not enough or the travel costs were too high – or because they were incompatible with her caring responsibilities. There was no evidence before us that had the Claimant been able to carry out heavy duties, she would have found a suitable alternative role and wouldn’t have been transferred onto the RRP.[41]Finally, standing back and considering the test in s.15(1)(a) EqA as a whole, we are not satisfied the Claimant was treated unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of her disability. The revision in SMMC and consequent reduction in and change to the Claimant’s hours was nothing to do with her disability while her transfer to the RRP was because she did not consider the roles offered to her within SMMC to be suitable for reasons unrelated to her disability. The RRP was a supportive policy with the purpose of avoiding redundancies through which the Claimant has been able to continue her employment with the Respondent. The fact she was unhappy about the revision and its impact on her is understandable, given in particular the fact of her disability and her caring responsibilities, but it does not mean that she was treated unfavourably because of her disability or something arising from it.[42]The claim for disability discrimination is therefore dismissed. Approved By: