In Person For the v Wolverhampton Homes — 2019

The tribunal heard claims by Stephen Shoker arising from his employment as a Fire Safety Compliance Officer and his resignation on 8 November 2019. It held that complaints about matters before 26 September 2019 were out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. In its findings on credit, it preferred the respondent's witnesses where there was conflict and said it was unable to rely on the claimant's account unless it was admitted or supported by contemporaneous documents.

On whistleblowing, the tribunal rejected the case that the claimant had made protected disclosures at the 25 September 2019 meeting about workload, fire safety compliance, competence, resources, or scapegoating. It found those matters were not shown to have been communicated as pleaded, and that in any event they did not amount to qualifying disclosures made in the public interest and tending to show a relevant legal failure. The tribunal also found no causal link between any protected disclosure and the alleged detriments, including the 1 November 2019 letter, the 7 and 8 November 2019 calls, or the claimant's immediate resignation.

The direct disability discrimination complaints also failed. The tribunal rejected the claimant's case that there had been a pre-determined plan to remove him from employment, and it found that the allegations concerning the 6 June 2019 meeting, the return-to-work plan, the September 2019 work plans, the weekly meetings, the October 2019 review, and the weekend-working issue were either not established on the facts or did not amount to less favourable treatment because of disability. It held that stage one of the burden of proof test was not met, and that where work was allocated it was not proved to have been done because of the claimant's disability.

The reasonable adjustments claim failed because the tribunal rejected the pleaded PCP of increasing workload and requiring work to be done in short time. It found that the respondent had instead made substantial adjustments, including occupational health referrals, a stress risk assessment, phased return arrangements, and revised work plans designed to support the claimant. The harassment claim failed because, although the tribunal accepted that any conduct complained of would have been unwanted, it found no factual basis to show that the conduct related to disability. No remedy arose because none of the substantive claims succeeded.