M.Griffiths v Britvic Soft Drinks Limited — 2023

Mr Griffiths had worked for Britvic since 2013 and was a Shift Team Leader in the Canning department when he began sickness absence on 2 May 2022, citing work-related stress and anxiety. After an occupational health assessment on 27 June 2022 and a series of medical management meetings in July 2022, Britvic implemented a performance improvement plan and managed his return to work. The tribunal found credibility problems in the claimant's evidence, particularly about alleged pre-resignation contact with a psychologist, and said it approached unsupported parts of his account with caution.

On the constructive unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal rejected the alleged breaches identified in the resignation letter. It found Britvic had genuine concerns about performance and management of the shifts, had investigated the relevant issues, and had reasonable and proper cause for placing the claimant on a PIP and for the return-to-work arrangements. The tribunal held there was no repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, and that the grievance outcome did not change that conclusion. It also found the claimant had affirmed any earlier complaints before resigning, including by choosing to return to work with a PIP and by later indicating that he would continue working with the relevant managers if needed; the grievance was not upheld on 14 September 2022, he resigned on 15 September 2022, and his employment ended on 13 October 2022.

The disability claims all failed because the tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant had a mental impairment amounting to a disability at the relevant time. It held that the evidence pointed to symptoms arising from adverse life events rather than a mental impairment, and that there was no substantial long-term adverse effect established. The tribunal also found that Britvic did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that the claimant was disabled or likely to be placed at a substantial disadvantage.

In consequence, the direct discrimination claim failed for lack of disability and, in any event, because there was no prima facie evidence that the employer's actions were because of disability. The reasonable adjustments claim failed because there was no sufficient evidential basis for the PCP, disadvantage, or knowledge elements. The harassment claim failed because the tribunal found no evidence that the complained-of conduct was related to disability or that it had the purpose or effect required by s.26 EqA 2010. The tribunal therefore dismissed all claims and recorded no monetary award.