Ms Jill Collins v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Police — 2022

Ms Jill Collins worked for the Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset Police as a Clerical Officer from 27 November 2012 until 17 July 2020. The dispute arose after the respondent introduced a rota requiring clerical officers to work one Saturday in 11 and bank holidays on a limited basis. The claimant initially had an exemption because of caring responsibilities for her mother, but after her mother died and she returned from bereavement and sick leave, the respondent decided she should be included in the rota. The tribunal recorded that the claimant consistently refused to work the new pattern and maintained that it could not lawfully be imposed without her agreement.

On the contract issue, the tribunal held that the claimant's employment contract incorporated the Police Support Staff Council handbook and that clause 2.3 allowed the respondent to change start and finish times and rest days, subject to consultation. It found the respondent had undertaken the required consultation and that the handbook provisions governed notice of changes to working patterns. Although the tribunal considered there was tension between the notice wording in the statement of particulars and the handbook, it held the handbook prevailed and meant the claimant was entitled to 12 months' notice of rest days. That point did not assist the claimant because she never said she would work the rota once the notice period had expired; she simply refused to do so.

The tribunal found the dismissal was for some other substantial reason under s.98(1)(b) ERA 1996, namely refusal to work the new rota, and that the dismissal was fair under s.98(4). It found the claimant knew of the rota by 19 February 2019 at the latest, that she had made her refusal clear throughout, and that the respondent was entitled to proceed earlier than February 2020 because her position was fixed. The tribunal said the process was fair overall and accepted there had been a genuine mistake in not offering an appeal at the point of dismissal, but that the respondent later offered an appeal in good faith and the claimant did not take it up.

The disability discrimination claim was dismissed. The respondent accepted the claimant was disabled within s.6 Equality Act 2010 because cancer is a deemed disability, but the tribunal did not accept that her disability prevented her from working the rota or that the rota placed her at a substantial disadvantage. It found that she was unwilling, rather than unable, to do so, and that she had declined offers of flexible working, occupational health referral, and discussion of other adjustments. The age discrimination claim under s.19 Equality Act 2010 was also dismissed because the tribunal was not persuaded that staff aged 60 and over were less able to meet the rota requirement or that the claimant herself suffered age-related disadvantage.