Former Sellafield employee's discrimination claims are dismissed following four-day tribunal

It also dismissed his claim for unlawful deduction of wages.

Karl Connor’s unlawful deduction and disability (mental health impairment) discrimination complaint involved a claim for a £220 unpaid bonus.

He started work at Sellafield Ltd in February 2007 as a media relations manager. He was promoted in March 2015 to senior internal communications manager, on a salary of £60,016.

Mr Connor resigned on February 15 last year.

An employment tribunal was held in Liverpool in January, before Judge Shotter.

A reserved judgement was issued this week, stating the 'unanimous judgment of the Tribunal'.

It said: "The claimant was not paid less than the total bonus properly payable, and his claim for unlawful deduction of wages brought under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is dismissed.

"The claimant was not unfavourably treated under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 and his claim for disability discrimination is dismissed."

It added: "Since issuing these proceedings the claimant resigned on February 15 2021 and has since brought a complaint of constructive unfair dismissal which was not before this Tribunal and will be dealt with separately at another liability hearing as discussed with the parties."

The tribunal heard Mr Connor went to see his GP on October 5, 2018, when he was diagnosed with 'stress' and deemed 'not fit for work'.

He returned to work on November 20, on a phased return.

He was absent from work the following year, from June 3 to September 20.

The judgement states: "On June 5, 2019, the claimant was diagnosed with depressive disorder, the first time the GP referred to this condition.

"The claimant’s medication was increased and it reflected 'mood got worse recently when he was given an amber rating out of the blue for his performance at work which really set him back. In the last week he’s felt low and struggling to get motivated.'"

On behalf of Sellafield Ltd, the Tribunal heard from Gary McKeating, head of development and community, and the claimant’s line manager and Jamieson Ronald Reed, head of corporate affairs who line managed Gary McKeating.

The judgement stated: "The claimant had a long and close friendship with Jamieson Ronald Reed (known as 'Jamie Reed') outside work which continued when Jamie Reed joined the respondent as head of development and community in or around June 2017.

Karl Connor's claims were dismissed by an employment tribunal.

"There is little doubt Jamie Reed, Gary McKeating and the claimant looked after each other’s interests within the respondent’s business and the claimant’s expectation was that he would be given a considerable amount of leeway in contrast to how he was managed by Helen Connolly.

"The claimant was originally line-managed by Helen Connolly who took him to task for his underperformance, and there was a breakdown in the relationship which resulted in Jamie Reed moving the claimant into a role specifically created for him under the line management of Gary McKeating in July 2018."

The judgement stated: "The Tribunal was surprised there was no formal returned to work interview on November 20 2018 with Gary McKeating.

"The evidence before the Tribunal was that as the claimant, Gary Keating and Jamie Reed sat in a group and there were numerous informal chats, as one would expect between close friends and colleagues."

It added: "Had a formal return to work taken place it is likely the respondent would have been informed the claimant remained on anti-depressant medication and this would have raised a question mark over the seriousness of his condition and whether it was long term."

The judge concluded that Mr Reed's decision to reduce Mr Connor's bonus from 3 per cent to 1.66 per cent was "for one reason only and that was the claimant’s failure to complete the Coms audit objective by the end of September 2019, an objective that had been ongoing since 2018 with a budget of £100,000 subsequently being granted to assist the claimant achieve it."

It stated: "The Tribunal concluded that the claimant was fully aware he had not met the Comms audit objective; he had got away with it in the past after a near miss almost awarded an amber rating, and he expected his friends would not enforce the rating and when it was given at the meeting held end of March, change it to the claimant’s favour."

The Tribunal accepted that being paid part of a bonus and losing out on £220 can amount to unfavourable treatment.

"In the claimant’s case it did not as the reason came back to his failure to meet the Comms audit objective which had a direct impact of bonus valuation, as acknowledged by the claimant at the time."

The Tribunal stated Sellafield Ltd had 'turned a blind eye to evidence of disability'.

It referenced an email from Mr Connor to Mr Reed about the negative effects of being 'on a heavy dose of medication for a mental health problem', and stated: "Had Jamie Reed followed up on the information given by the claimant about his medication and mental health, sought medical advice from the GP and/or occupational health, it may have dawned on him that the claimant, having been signed unfit for work over a substantial period, was still unwell and by the end of March 2019 this had been ongoing for approximately six months with an increase and not a decrease in medication.

"These factors point to the likelihood that as at the end of March 2019 the claimant’s mental impairment would continue long-term into the future and he was disabled with depression."

The judgement also stated that "the claimant and Jamie Reed were engaging in extensive lengthy text messages during the working day concerning politics which culminated in the claimant texting at 11.32 on February 26 2019: "Jamie we need to stop this now… When we do this face to face its okay…but I’m struggling with this. Please remember that I’m on a heavy dose of medication for a mental health problem'."

The Tribunal concluded: "On the balance of probabilities the respondent was entitled to reduce the bonus from 3 per cent to 1.66 per cent on June 15 2019, the claimant was not paid less than that which was properly payable to him and there was no unlawful deduction of wages."