A blind man who was sacked during his probation period at a Wrexham bakery is seeking over £112,000 in damages and other payments.

An employment tribunal found that not enough was done by bosses at The Village Bakery in Coedpoeth to accommodate Ian Stanley and help him adjust to his role.

He was dismissed six weeks into his three-month probationary period and the company, which employs 170 at the plant, claimed that it was on health and safety grounds,  that production levels were affected and that there was a risk of damage to machinery.

But in upholding his claim of “unfavourable treatment” in being dismissed because of his disability, Employment Judge Rhian Brace commented: “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.”

Mr Stanley, who is registered blind and was diagnosed with Bardet Biedl  Syndrome in 2010, had previously worked as a packer in another factory for 18 years when he was taken on by The Village Bakery in July, 2023.

The tribunal heard that his bosses knew of his disability and night shift manager Kevin Jones said he very soon received reports that Mr Stanley was making lots of mistakes, crashing racks of bread into machinery, dropping loaves and not cleaning trays properly.

He was given various jobs, including measuring the temperature of the bread, but had difficulty reading the thermometer. He also had problems in using a small keypad to clock in.

The tribunal found that he should have been given more time to learn the layout of the factory and other 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.

MOST READ:

Tom Breeze, manager of the Coedpoeth bakery, said the company could not afford to employ someone specially to help Mr Stanley even on a short-term basis, but the tribunal rejected that argument.

“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 rejected the argument that health and safety issues were a consideration because Mr Stanley had been allowed to continue working for six weeks without a health and safety assessment.

Another hearing will be held to decide on the financial settlement, but Mr Stanley has applied for £33,404 for the loss of past and future wages, £35,000 for injury to feelings, a 25% uplift for the company’s alleged failure to follow the arbitration practice and a further sum for aggravated damages in the way in which the company conducted its case.