Stuckey v Daido Industrial Bearings Europe Ltd & Anor

A valid written grievance under the statutory grievance procedure need not use technical language or identify itself as a grievance. It must, however, identify a complaint which is essentially the same as the later tribunal claim. In a disability discrimination claim, the grievance must link the complained-of treatment with the disability. A tribunal may consider documents cumulatively, including documents written by an employer’s representative, but there must be a core statement of complaint. The Employment Appeal Tribunal will interfere only for an error of law, unsupported finding, or perversity.

The claimant appealed against preliminary findings of the Employment Tribunal concerning claims of disability discrimination and unfair dismissal following his dismissal by the first respondent. The Tribunal held that the claimant had not raised a valid grievance and therefore lacked jurisdiction over the disability discrimination claims against the first respondent, except insofar as they related to dismissal. It permitted the claim against the second respondent to proceed and later awarded compensation.

The appeal challenged whether individual documents, or their combination, amounted to a grievance and whether a grievance needed to link the treatment complained of with the claimant’s disability. A third ground concerning the Equal Treatment Directive was not pursued.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The Employment Tribunal had not erred in law in concluding that the documents relied upon, individually or collectively, did not constitute a grievance under regulation 2(1) of the Employment Act (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2004.
2. The statutory grievance procedure allows a flexible and non-technical approach. A grievance may be recorded by an employer’s representative, as recognised in Kennedy Scott Ltd v Francis. That authority was distinguishable because, in the present case, no document recorded a complaint linking the claimant’s treatment with his disability.
3. The essential requirement is that the written complaint to the employer is substantially the same in general nature as the later tribunal claim. The grievance and claim need not use identical wording, but the written material must identify the relevant complaint. The claimant’s documents did not contain a sufficient core statement of complaint.
4. For a disability discrimination grievance, there must be a link between the behaviour complained of and the disability. The employer’s knowledge of the claimant’s dyslexia, unhappiness about conduct, and need for sensitive handling did not itself establish that link.
5. The Tribunal had correctly applied the limited appellate jurisdiction under section 21(1) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. Its conclusion was supported by the evidence and was neither legally erroneous nor perverse.

• Employment Tribunal, Exeter: on 12 November 2009, with written Reasons stated to have been sent on 29 January 2009, held that no valid grievance had been raised and that the disability discrimination claims against the first respondent were outside its jurisdiction except in relation to dismissal. It allowed the claim against the second respondent to proceed.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: dismissed the appeal on 10 February 2010.