A DISABLED dad is seeking a five-figure payout after he was sacked from a major Basingstoke employer.

Warehouse worker Anthony Parker has taken Sainsbury's to an employment tribunal, alleging he was dismissed from its Houndmills Road warehouse because of his complaints of unfair treatment.

A panel in Southampton was told that depot bosses fired the 44-year-old last September following a disciplinary hearing because they felt he ignored a compulsory random stop-and-search request and walked away after being challenged.

But Mr Parker, of Mathias Walk, Brighton Hill, Basingstoke, told the tribunal that painkilling drugs he used following the amputation of his right arm had made him confused while passing through the anti-pilfering checks.

And the single dad, who had worked at the warehouse for 10 years, claimed the incident was unfairly used as a reason to dismiss him - stating other staff flouted the stop-and-search rules but kept their jobs.

Mr Parker is seeking in the region of £20,000 compensation for loss of earnings, injury to feelings and discrimination.

He told the tribunal: "When I was sacked, I felt the respondent Sainsbury's had used the security incident as a reason to get rid of me."

A father of two girls, Mr Parker told how he had his arm amputated following a motorbike accident on the A339 Alton to Basingstoke road in 2001.

While he returned to work at the depot in December 2002, Mr Parker claimed he was shunted into less-challenging roles that also paid less, despite raising grievances about this. He alleged the company violated disability laws by stalling on giving him his old job back.

"Sainsbury's do not like dealing with people with disabilities," he said. "When I was given my risk assessment to return to the warehouse, I felt offended because the woman looked at what I couldn't do instead of what I could."

Mr Parker, a former trade union official, unsuccessfully applied for a number of positions but, in November 2005, he was given a risk assessment for a role as a clerical bank person.

The assessment deemed him unsuitable, but Mr Parker claimed "reasonable adjustments" under the Disability Discrimination Act were not made.

The tribunal heard he did finally return to a role in the warehouse, after adjustments were made to take his disability into account, in June last year - just months before the security incident that led to his dismissal.

Bosses from the Houndmills depot, which employs more than 1,000 people, told the tribunal that the company refutes the allegations of discrimination and the claims of unfair dismissal. Giving evidence, management staff said all necessary steps were taken to help Mr Parker back to work.

Human resources manager Jeff Norwood said that following Mr Parker's accident, it had been clear that he could not return to his old job as a warehouse man. It was therefore decided to redeploy him to an administrative role.

Referring to Mr Parker's unsuccessful application for the clerical bank person role, Mr Norwood said all the right adjustments had been made in line with disability laws, but a candidate with the right skills had got the job.

He said: "Everything the company and I did for Mr Parker had been done with his best interests in mind. But he put himself in a situation that led to his dismissal."

The tribunal was told CCTV captured Mr Parker walking past the stop-and-search check and apparently making a remark to a security guard, who later said it was a comment complaining of being repeatedly searched that week.

Transport manager Darren Stanland told the tribunal how Mr Parker's behaviour in the footage threw into doubt his claims that he was confused.

He said: "When he interacted with the guard, he made the conscious effort not to be searched."

Mr Stanland, who has worked at the depot for 24 years, said during his investigation that he doubted the drug side-effect claim, despite Mr Parker producing a doctor's note, because there had not been any reports of Mr Parker lapsing in concentration at work.

He countered Mr Parker's argument that he was singled out unfairly for dismissal, when others kept their job for similar offences, by pointing out that another employee, Tyrone Smith, had been sacked for the same disciplinary matter.

Sainsbury's solicitor Ken Cadoo, questioning Mr Parker, said: "At every opportunity, the company tried to bend over backwards to accommodate you and you poured scorn over them."

Mr Parker's solicitor Jonathan Gray told the panel: "There were no live health and safety issues that would have prevented the claimant from being given back his warehouse job much earlier.

"The claimant was subject to medication. A reasonable adjustment would have been to lessen the dismissal sanction in light of his disability."

The three-strong tribunal panel chose to reserve judgement and will publish its decision shortly.