In the case of Mr I S v The Village Bakery (Wrexham) Limited a man who is registered blind is seeking a £112,000 payout after being dismissed during his probation period at a bakery.

An employment tribunal found that the management at The Village Bakery in Coedpoeth, Wrexham, did not make sufficient efforts to accommodate Mr IS and help him adjust to his role.

Mr IS was let go six weeks into his three-month probationary period, with the company citing health and safety concerns, production impact, and potential machinery damage as reasons for his dismissal.

The tribunal upheld his claim of “unfavourable treatment” due to his disability, and a further hearing will determine the financial settlement.

Tribunal judge Rhian Brace stated, “We accept that in principle the aims relied on were capable of being legitimate aims, we were only persuaded that the first, that of efficient production, was in the respondent’s mind when dismissing the claimant.”

Diagnosed with Bardet-Biedl syndrome, a genetic condition, in 2010, Mr IS had previously worked as a packer in another factory for 18 years before joining The Village Bakery last July. The tribunal heard that his bosses were aware of his disability. The night shift manager reported that Mr IS made frequent mistakes, such as crashing racks of bread into machinery, dropping loaves, and not cleaning trays properly.

Mr IS was assigned various tasks, including measuring bread temperature, but struggled to read the thermometer. He also had difficulty using a small keypad to clock in.

The tribunal concluded that Mr IS should have been given more time to learn the factory layout and procedures.

“We concluded that giving the claimant more time to familiarise himself with the processes, the people, and the factory environment would have been a practicable step that would have been effective,” said the judge.

The bakery manager argued that the company could not afford to employ someone to assist Mr IS even temporarily. However, this was rejected by the tribunal.

“Even if this adjustment had a significant cost associated with it, which we were not persuaded that it would, it may still have been cost-effective in overall terms – for example, compared with the costs of slowing down the production and paying someone to take on half of the claimant’s workload, which the respondent appears to have been undertaking,” said the judge.

The panel also dismissed the argument that health and safety issues were a consideration since S Mr IS had been allowed to work for six weeks without a health and safety assessment.

A further hearing will determine the financial settlement.