In IForce Ltd v Wood, W has osteoarthritis. She perceived that her symptoms worsened in cold and damp weather. IFL asked all its workers to move between work benches, including those by the loading doors. W refused as she believed this would require her to work in colder, damper conditions. However, IFL’s investigations showed that temperature and humidity levels were hardly any different throughout the warehouse and W was issued with a written warning. The EAT overturned an ET’s decision that the warning was unfavourable treatment arising in consequence of W’s disability. There had to be some connection between the refusal to work at benches near the loading doors and W’s disability. But even though W believed her condition might worsen if she was required to work in colder and damper conditions, this was not what IFL was requiring her to do; the working conditions were not substantially different, so there was no connection between her refusal and her disability.
Warning not a consequence of disability where mistaken belief work conditions were worse
Article by: Makbool Javaid |