Mr R Wayman of Counsel For the v Respondent — 2021

Mr Marc Harris resigned on 27 June 2020 and his employment ended on 29 September 2020 after notice. The tribunal heard liability only. His claims were framed around alleged bullying and lack of support in the engineering department, two grievances in January 2020, a disability reasonable adjustments complaint, and an unfair constructive dismissal claim.

The automatic unfair dismissal claim under s103A ERA 1996 was withdrawn at the start of the hearing. The whistleblowing detriment claim under s47B ERA 1996 failed because the tribunal held that the January 2020 grievances were personal complaints about Mr Harris's own treatment rather than protected disclosures made in the public interest. It accepted that the grievances contained information capable of engaging alleged breaches of legal obligation and health and safety, but found that Mr Harris did not, at the time, believe he was making disclosures in the public interest, and that any such belief would not have been reasonable. In any event, the tribunal also found that the alleged detriments were not proved or were not shown to have been on the ground of any disclosure.

On disability, the tribunal held that Mr Harris was a disabled person only from 30 April 2020, when the first occupational health report indicated that his stress-related condition was likely to fall within the Act. Before that date it found no sufficient medical evidence of a long-term impairment. The reasonable adjustments claim failed because most of the alleged PCPs were not established as practices, and the only PCP the tribunal accepted existed was the maintenance of set reporting lines. It found that this did not cause the substantial disadvantage relied upon and, in any event, there was no evidence that the respondent knew of such a disadvantage.

On the constructive dismissal claim, the tribunal accepted that there had been bullying and a lack of support by the senior management team, and that after the grievance process three senior managers had breached confidentiality and colluded in their responses. It held that this conduct breached the implied term of mutual trust and confidence and was an effective cause of Mr Harris's resignation. The tribunal therefore treated the resignation as a dismissal under s95(1)(c) ERA 1996 and found that dismissal unfair under s98(4).

The respondent sought very late in the hearing to argue affirmation, but the tribunal refused to let that issue be added because it was not part of the agreed issues and would have caused prejudice and delay. No remedy was assessed in this judgment, which was liability only, and the tribunal recorded that further directions would follow for a remedy hearing.