Paint technician with autism loses redundancy challenge over team working criterion
A paint technician with autism who was selected for redundancy after scoring lower on a 'team working' criterion has lost his claims for unfair dismissal, whistleblowing detriment and disability discrimination.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy-selection
- #team-working-criterion
- #autism-spectrum-disorder
- #whistleblowing
- #covid-19-furlough
- #reasonable-adjustments
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a paint technician from 23 June 2014 until 12 November 2020.
- The respondent conceded the claimant was disabled due to autism spectrum disorder (Asperger's) and had knowledge of this.
- The claimant was selected for redundancy after scoring lower than two colleagues on selection criteria including team working.
- The claimant made disclosures about environmental damage (paint down sink) and drug use, which the tribunal accepted as protected disclosures.
- The tribunal found the claimant was not subjected to detriment or dismissed because of the disclosures.
- The tribunal found the team working criterion did not place the claimant at a substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled employees.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced employment as an apprentice painter at Autotech Reading Ltd.
-
Informal performance review and investigation
Claimant received an informal performance review and was investigated for driving a customer's vehicle at excess speed and throwing equipment in anger.
-
Grievance raised
Claimant raised a grievance against line manager Charles Goswell, citing bullying and harassment.
-
Furloughed
Claimant was placed on furlough leave due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
-
Colleagues returned from furlough
Two colleagues were brought back to work while the claimant remained on furlough.
-
At risk of redundancy
Claimant was informed his role was at risk of redundancy along with two colleagues.
-
First consultation meeting
Claimant raised concerns about unfair scoring and made a disclosure about paint being washed down a sink.
-
Final consultation and notice of redundancy
Claimant was served notice of redundancy after scoring 75 compared to colleagues' 80 and 87.5.
-
Appeal hearing
Claimant appealed redundancy decision and made further disclosures about drug use and time theft.
-
Appeal dismissed
Respondent dismissed the appeal, upholding the redundancy decision.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed (automatically or ordinarily), subjected to detriment for whistleblowing, or discriminated against due to disability by the application of a team working criterion in redundancy selection.
The outcome
The claimant, a paint technician with six years' service, was dismissed by Autotech Reading Limited on grounds of redundancy in November 2020. He brought claims for unfair dismissal, whistleblowing detriment, automatic unfair dismissal, and disability discrimination (failure to make reasonable adjustments).
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that the respondent had a genuine redundancy situation and followed a fair consultation process. The selection criteria, including team working, were applied reasonably. The claimant's autism did not place him at a substantial disadvantage under the team working criterion because the criterion assessed actual behaviour, not underlying traits.
The tribunal also accepted that the claimant made protected disclosures about environmental damage and drug use, but concluded that these were not the reason for his dismissal or any detriment. The appeal manager's comment that the claimant was 'making other employees look bad' was not a detriment on whistleblowing grounds.
No compensation was awarded as all claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Redundancy selection criteria that assess actual workplace behaviour, such as team working, are unlikely to be discriminatory even if they indirectly affect disabled employees, as long as they are applied fairly.
- Making a protected disclosure does not automatically protect you from redundancy if the employer has a genuine business reason for the dismissal and follows a fair process.
- Employers should ensure that selection criteria are objective and consistently applied, and that employees are given a chance to comment on their scores during consultation.
- If you have a disability, you should request reasonable adjustments to the selection process in advance, rather than challenging the criteria after the decision.
A redundancy process under scrutiny
This case shows how tribunals approach redundancy selection when an employee has a disability and has raised whistleblowing concerns. The claimant, a paint technician with six years' service, was selected for redundancy after scoring lower than two colleagues on criteria that included 'team working'. He had autism spectrum disorder (Asperger's), which the employer accepted as a disability.
The claimant argued that the team working criterion placed him at a substantial disadvantage because of his condition. He also said his dismissal was automatically unfair because he had made protected disclosures about paint being washed down a sink and drug use among colleagues.
Why the tribunal rejected the claims
The tribunal found that the team working criterion was not a 'provision, criterion or practice' that disadvantaged the claimant. It assessed his actual behaviour at work, not his underlying traits. The employer had given him the same opportunity to demonstrate team working as anyone else. The tribunal also noted that the claimant had not requested any adjustment to the scoring process before the decision was made.
On the whistleblowing claims, the tribunal accepted that the disclosures were protected, but found no evidence that they influenced the redundancy decision or any detriment. The appeal manager's comment that the claimant was 'making other employees look bad' was not linked to the disclosures.
What this means for similar cases
This case is a reminder that a fair redundancy process can withstand challenges even when the employee has a disability and has raised concerns. Employers should still be careful to apply selection criteria objectively and consult thoroughly. But the tribunal will not second-guess a reasonable business decision simply because the employee has a protected characteristic or has blown the whistle.
For employees, the key takeaway is that raising concerns does not give blanket protection from redundancy. The focus will be on whether the employer acted reasonably in the circumstances, not on the fact that disclosures were made.
Similar cases
Long-term sickness dismissal: 11-year NHS phlebotomist fairly let go after 395 days off in 596
An employment tribunal has ruled that St Helens and Knowsley Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust fairly dismissed a community phlebotomist with 11 years' service due to her poor attendance record. No compensation was awarded.
Whistleblowing dismissal and detriment: former employee awarded £14,443
A former employee who was automatically unfairly dismissed and suffered detriment for whistleblowing has been awarded £14,443.27 by an employment tribunal. The respondent, PNS Garage Installations Limited, did not attend the hearing.
Engagement manager loses constructive dismissal and whistleblowing claims against NHS board
A manager with nine years' service failed to prove he was constructively dismissed or discriminated against after resigning from NHS Cheshire and Merseyside Integrated Care Board. The tribunal dismissed all claims including disability discrimination, harassment, and whistleblowing detriment.
Bar Manager with terminal cancer: tribunal refuses to strike out discrimination claims
An employment judge has refused to strike out disability discrimination claims brought by a bar manager with terminal lung cancer, ruling that factual disputes over reasonable adjustments during the pandemic must be heard at a full hearing.