2 Sisters’ Solway Foods loses disability tribunal

Sandwich manufacturer Solway Foods, part of 2 Sisters Food Group, has been found guilty of constructive dismissal and disability discrimination when a worker was forced to resign after falling at the firm’s Northamptonshire factory.

Philip Hambly, who suffers from epilepsy and had worked for the firm for nearly 20 years, won the case against Solway following a case at Leicester Employment Tribunal last week.

The dispute began after Hambly claimed he was forced to resign after falling while working on a production line at the firm’s site in Corby.

Hambly had said he was unfit to work on the line and had been medically advised not to do, according to a statement from the Rights and Equality Council (REC).

Relevant protection

The REC slammed the firm for its actions and agreed that Hambly was left with no choice but to resign after not receiving the relevant protection from the firm.

Anjona Roy, director of the REC, told FoodManufacture.co.uk: “The key factor here was that, although Solway Foods had the correct employment policies and procedures, they were not implementing them as they should have done.

It’s all very well having bits of paper but they have to be more than that. It’s not just hearts and minds.”

Hambly also hit out at the firm for ignoring his complaints and stressed that he was putting his and his colleague’s safety in danger by performing the role.

Forced to leave

He said: "I knew in my heart it was right to fight the case. I was forced to leave. I could not understand why I was put to work on a line when for over 10 years it was made very clear by the management and occupational health advisor that I must not

It was completely unsafe to have me working on the line.  For my safety, and the safety of my colleagues, I had to resign.”

Solway Foods said it was “disappointed” with the outcome and claimed that it did not “represent a fair view of the case”.

We have a very strong track record of promoting occupational health in the workplace,” a spokesman for the firm revealed.

 “We will review the judgement and consider our options and, in the light of this, believe it is not in either party’s interest to discuss any further details at this time.”