Copyright mirror
A Wetherspoon worker is set to pocket more than £25,000 after being "persecuted" for using his staff discount. Brandon Halstead, who works at The Albany Palace in Trowbridge, Wiltshire, used his discount code for a meal for seven, including himself, at another Wetherspoon branch in August 2023. The 20% discount knocked £19.17 off the total bill. However, Brandon, who has autism, was later accused of "dishonesty" and misusing the company's employee discount policy. According to an employment tribunal, Brandon told his manager he didn't know that his Wetherspoon discount only applies to groups of four or fewer. Following this, Brandon was disciplined by his superiors, leaving him feeling "persecuted and let down". The kitchen porter, who started working at the pub in September 2018, was subsequently signed off due to stress at work. In response to this, an employment tribunal ruled that Brandon should receive £25,412 as his autism put him at a "substantial disadvantage", reports the Liverpool Echo . A spokesperson for Wetherspoon told the ECHO: "The individual is still employed by Wetherspoon and we do not comment on employment matters involving current employees. It should be noted that the employees harassment claim was not upheld." The Daily Mail initially reported that the porter was called to a disciplinary hearing for gross misconduct following an allegation that he had been "dishonest" and abused the policy. During a later shift that month, the employment tribunal in Bristol was told that Brandon was summoned by his shift manager to discuss a potential breach of the employee discount policy. He admitted during the meeting that he had used his employee discount for himself and more than three other people, unaware there was a limit on the number. Brandon also revealed to his boss that his mother had access to his Wetherspoon app to check his rota timetables, which he was informed was a violation of data security policy. A subsequent meeting was arranged involving his mother, Sarah, who explained to her son's manager that she needed this access to assist Brandon with planning bus times and arranging lifts to and from work. The tribunal heard how the mother and son outlined the impact of his autism, stating that someone would need to point out the specific policies he was accused of breaching or explain them to him in a sit-down meeting. Following this, Brandon received a letter instructing him to attend a gross misconduct disciplinary hearing. Beyond being accused of "dishonesty" and "abuse" of the employee discount policy, he was also charged with failing to adhere to data protection and confidentiality policy. The whole ordeal caused the autistic employee "significant stress and anxiety", resulting in him being signed off work due to stress. A subsequent occupational health report disclosed that he felt "persecuted and let down". In September, Sarah submitted a formal grievance on her son's behalf. Senior Wetherspoon bosses tried to arrange a grievance meeting following Sarah's request, with the mother later declaring that returning to work was "completely out of the question". She further alleged that management had "failed to make any reasonable adjustments" during the procedure after being questioned about potential accommodations for her son. The meeting never took place, and whilst ongoing talks continued regarding her son's possible return to employment, Sarah "requested a compensatory gesture". Wetherspoon subsequently turned down the mother's appeal for compensation or a "goodwill gesture" concerning the circumstances, prompting her to pursue claims of disability-related harassment and failure to make reasonable adjustments at the tribunal. The tribunal was told there existed a "strict zero tolerance policy" for "anyone that breached the discount policy". Presiding over the tribunal, employment Judge Murdoch declared that while she did find there was unwarranted conduct towards Brandon, she did not classify it as harassment. Instead, she determined that applying the zero tolerance policy to an individual with autism "who did not know the rule and was not dishonest in his misuse of it" was not a "proportional response". The reasonable adjustment claim was upheld, with the statement: "We find that the application of this standard procedure puts [Brandon] at a substantial disadvantage compared to someone without [his] autism. "A comparator, although they may find immediate suspension on full pay to be stressful, would not necessarily feel the intensity of stress and anxiety that [Brandon] did. "Additionally, in the case of someone without autism, they might have known about the rules of the discount policy and broken them dishonestly, or they might have been dishonest when asked if they had broken the rules. "In this kind of case, we understand that [Wetherspoon] might want to suspend them while they were investigating, but in [Brandon] case, there was no evidence whatsoever of dishonesty. "[Brandon] admitted straight away to breaking the rules of the discount policy because he was unaware of the rules. A typical feature of autism is a strong desire to adhere to rules."
