Ms K Bonk v Lainston House Limited — 2021

Ms Bonk had worked for Lainston House since 2012 and the respondent accepted that her endogenous depression amounted to a disability from January 2019. The tribunal found that the dismissal on 10 January 2022 was because Ms Hill believed the employment relationship had irretrievably broken down, mainly because the claimant no longer trusted local management and would only communicate in writing. That reason was capable of amounting to some other substantial reason, but the dismissal was unfair because the respondent did not first follow the occupational health recommendation that a further meeting be held with senior management at a neutral location to see whether the relationship could be repaired.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant made qualifying disclosures in December 2020 and again by email on 18 May 2021 about Covid-related cleaning practices, including mugs and glasses being cleaned in guest rooms. It found that she genuinely and reasonably believed the matters were in the public interest and concerned health and safety, but it rejected the whistleblowing claims. The December 2020 verbal concerns did not lead to any adverse reaction, and by May 2021 the respondent responded to her complaint within hours and later changed the housekeeping protocol. The tribunal therefore found no dismissal causation under section 103A and no detriment on the ground of protected disclosure under section 47B.

On the disability discrimination claims, the tribunal found that the claimant's ability to clean multiple rooms was reduced by her depression and that the November 2020 decision not to give her shifts was influenced by that more than trivially. However, that complaint was presented about 11 months late and the tribunal refused to extend time. The later complaint about fewer weekend shifts between 26 December 2020 and 12 May 2021 failed because the respondent was initially allocating weekend work to staff who usually worked weekends, the claimant did not work weekends before the lockdown period, and the evidence did not show that her speed remained a factor once weekend work was offered to her and lone-working training had been completed.

The reasonable adjustments claim failed because the respondent did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that the claimant was placed at a substantial disadvantage by a requirement to clean more than three rooms or the equivalent per day. The harassment claim failed because the tribunal found Ms Offord did not say the claimant was the employee with the thickest files, and the GP call was not related to disability. The victimisation claim failed because the claimant's tribunal claim was not more than a trivial influence on the dismissal decision, and the part-time workers claim failed because the claimant did not apply for the supervisor post and there was no evidence that the promotion of a colleague was because she worked part-time.