![[Basket]](images/basket.png){kind=small}
Your order![[cover image]](images/issue/BK201606.jpg)
‘Normal day-to-day activities’
[ch 7: pages 189-190]There is no longer a statutory list of normal day-to-day activities. Instead, a claimant must satisfy the tribunal that their own normal day-to-day activities are adversely affected. It is what someone cannot do as a result of their impairment that must be assessed, not what they can do (Aderemi v London and South Eastern Railway Limited [2012] UKEAT/0316/12/KN).
Both work and non-work activities can be “normal day-to-day activities”. A work activity is “normal” if it is found in a range of different work situations (for example, standing for long periods, reading or talking on the telephone). Under European law, it includes all activities relevant to enabling a person to participate in working life.
The test is whether it is a normal activity for most people - not for the person concerned. For example, playing the piano to concert standard would not be a normal day-to-day activity, even though it is normal for a concert pianist.
Carrying out an assessment or exam can be a normal day-to-day activity (Paterson v Commissioner of Police and the Metropolis [2007] ICR 1522). So can doing police work on night shifts (Chief Constable of Dumfries & Galloway Constabulary v Adams [2009] IRLR 612). European law requires tribunals to take a broad approach when identifying “normal day-to-day activities”:
The claimant, who suffered from chronic back pain, worked as a warehouse operative. His daily work included lifting and moving goods weighing up to 25kg, in part manually and in part using a pallet truck. “No-one with any knowledge of modern UK working life could doubt that large numbers of people are employed to work lifting and moving cases of up to 25kg across a range of occupations, including in particular occupations concerning warehousing and distribution”, noted the EAT judge, who concluded that these are “day to day activities.” The “pick rate” (which the claimant could not achieve because of his disability) was not an “activity”. Instead it was a particular requirement set by the employer as to the manner and speed of performance. A broad approach is needed, confirmed the EAT, because otherwise claimants will be excluded from protection by the very feature (in this case the pick rate) which prevents them participating fully in work, in breach of European obligations.
Banaszczyk v Booker Limited [2015] UKEAT/0132/15/RN