Unfair dismissal and failure to provide perching stool: Next Distribution Limited ordered to pay £21,964
A former employee of Next Distribution Limited has been awarded £21,964 after the tribunal found she was unfairly dismissed during a flawed redundancy process and the company failed to provide a perching stool as a reasonable adjustment for her disability.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by Next Distribution Limited and was dismissed on 3 February 2021.
- The claimant had a disability requiring a perching stool, which was not provided from 3 November 2020 until dismissal.
- The redundancy consultation process was found to be procedurally unfair.
- The claimant withdrew claims of discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments regarding flexi-furlough and a four-day week.
- The respondent was ordered to pay compensation for injury to feelings of £14,000 for the failure to provide a perching stool.
- A compensatory award for unfair dismissal of £5,194.19 was made after a 25% Polkey reduction.
Timeline
-
Claimant requests perching stool
The claimant requested a perching stool as a reasonable adjustment for her disability.
-
Failure to provide stool continues
The respondent failed to provide the perching stool from this date until dismissal.
-
Claimant dismissed
The claimant was dismissed by Next Distribution Limited.
-
Substantive hearing begins
The employment tribunal hearing commenced in Sheffield.
-
Judgment on liability
The tribunal found unfair dismissal and breach of duty to make reasonable adjustments.
-
Remedy hearing
The tribunal awarded compensation including £14,000 for injury to feelings and £5,194.19 for unfair dismissal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employee was unfairly dismissed due to a procedurally flawed redundancy consultation and whether the company failed to make reasonable adjustments by not providing a perching stool as an auxiliary aid.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the employee was unfairly dismissed because the redundancy consultation process was not procedurally fair. It also found that Next Distribution Limited breached its duty to make reasonable adjustments by failing to provide a perching stool from 3 November 2020 until the employee's dismissal on 3 February 2021.
Compensation breakdown:
- £14,000 for injury to feelings for the failure to make reasonable adjustments
- £2,752.44 interest on that award
- £5,194.19 compensatory award for unfair dismissal (after a 25% Polkey reduction)
- Total: £21,964.63
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must ensure redundancy consultations are procedurally fair, including proper consideration of alternatives and individual circumstances.
- Failure to provide a requested reasonable adjustment, such as a perching stool, can lead to significant compensation for injury to feelings.
- A Polkey reduction may apply if the employee would likely have been dismissed anyway even with a fair process, but it does not eliminate the need for fair consultation.
- Disability discrimination claims can succeed even when the employee is dismissed for redundancy, if the employer fails to make reasonable adjustments.
This case highlights the importance of both procedural fairness in redundancy consultations and the duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled employees. The former employee, who had a disability requiring a perching stool, requested this adjustment in August 2020. Despite this, Next Distribution Limited did not provide the stool until after her dismissal in February 2021, a period of over three months.
What went wrong
The redundancy consultation was found to be procedurally unfair. The tribunal did not specify the exact flaws, but the outcome shows that the employer failed to follow a fair process. Additionally, the failure to provide the perching stool was a clear breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments. The employee was left without an essential aid for her disability, which caused her distress and contributed to the injury to feelings award of £14,000.
What the employer could have done differently
Next Distribution Limited could have avoided the unfair dismissal finding by conducting a more thorough consultation, including exploring alternatives to redundancy and considering the employee's individual circumstances. Providing the perching stool promptly after the request would have prevented the reasonable adjustments claim. Even if the redundancy was inevitable, a fair process and timely adjustments would have reduced the legal exposure.
Why this matters
This case serves as a reminder that redundancy does not absolve employers of their obligations under disability discrimination law. Employees who are at risk of redundancy are still entitled to reasonable adjustments. The 25% Polkey reduction applied to the unfair dismissal award suggests the tribunal believed there was a chance the employee would have been dismissed anyway, but the core principle remains: fair process and reasonable adjustments are non-negotiable.
Similar cases
Bus driver with Crohn's disease awarded £25,000 after employer failed to provide suitable shifts
A bus driver with over 30 years' service was awarded £25,000 after his employer repeatedly allocated shifts that did not meet his disability-related needs, causing him to soil himself at work.
Parking warden with dyslexia unfairly dismissed over GPS data: tribunal finds discrimination
A civil enforcement officer with severe dyslexia was unfairly dismissed after GPS data appeared to contradict his patrol records. The tribunal found procedural failings and indirect disability discrimination, awarding £17,126.
Phased return not implemented: employer's failure to follow occupational health advice was disability discrimination
A former employee with a disability succeeded in a reasonable adjustments claim after Ocado failed to implement a phased return to work recommended by occupational health. The tribunal awarded £8,271.35, including £5,000 for injury to feelings.
Dismissed after a stroke: employer refused home working despite medical advice
A lettings manager who suffered a stroke was unfairly dismissed after his employer refused to allow him to work from home. The tribunal awarded £27,664.