Mr Paul Collins v National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty — 2019

Mr Collins worked for the National Trust as a building surveyor and said that he had electro-hypersensitivity. The tribunal assumed for the purpose of the claims that he was disabled, but did not need to decide that issue because both claims failed. It found that the respondent became aware of the condition on 11 January 2018, referred him to occupational health, and allowed ad hoc home working and regular one-to-ones while concerns emerged about his performance and his ability to work with colleagues.

On the reasonable adjustments claim, the tribunal identified the relevant PCP as a requirement for employees who were not home workers to attend an office environment containing wireless and electrical appliances. It accepted that this put the claimant at a substantial disadvantage in relation to some symptoms, but held that the respondent had taken such steps as were reasonable to avoid the disadvantage. Those steps included allowing home working, permitting him to leave if symptoms arose, limiting office attendance and meetings, and extending probation while support was provided.

The tribunal rejected the wider adjustments the claimant said were required, including switching off Wi-Fi, restricting mobile phone use by others, and providing a shielded screen, because they were impracticable, not supported by evidence, or not shown to be necessary. It also found that the weekly performance reviews in April and May 2018 were not excessive, but were supportive management in light of ongoing concerns.

On the section 15 claim, the tribunal accepted that extending probation and dismissing an employee can be unfavourable treatment. However, it found that Mr Collins was extended and then dismissed because of concerns about performance, preparation, communication, teamwork and collaboration, not because of his inability to work for prolonged periods in an office environment due to electro-hypersensitivity. It found there was little evidence linking the performance concerns to the condition, and that the decision to dismiss on 10 May 2018 was taken because he was not building relationships with the property and hub teams and was not working in line with the respondent's values and behaviours.