Mrs A Martin v City and County of Swansea — 2020

Mrs A Martin worked for City and County of Swansea from January 2014 and was redeployed into the housing department in April 2015. After office and workplace tensions, she went off sick on 10 March 2016 and emailed the director of legal on 11 March 2016 complaining about the handling of housing loan work. The tribunal held that email did not amount to a protected disclosure because it was general in nature, lacked sufficient specificity, and did not identify an apparent breach of an identifiable legal obligation.

The tribunal found that the council dismissed her on capability grounds relating to health. Mr Rewbridge genuinely believed she could not return to her Workways+ Mentor role or a suitable alternative role within a reasonable time, and that belief was reached after a reasonable investigation of the occupational health evidence, the final absence review material, and the evidence from managers and HR. The redeployment period had already been extended from 12 weeks to 29 weeks, she had been given supernumerary support and HR assistance, and the tribunal found there was no real prospect that waiting longer would have avoided dismissal. A procedural issue arose because Mr Rees's grievance letter was not included in the final absence review pack, but the tribunal held the substance of the complaint was properly considered on appeal and that the dismissal remained fair.

On disability discrimination, the tribunal accepted that dismissal was unfavourable treatment and that the relevant reason was her inability to return to work in the role, which it treated as something arising from disability because stress worsened her Barrett's Oesophagus symptoms and led Occupational Health to recommend medical redeployment. It nevertheless held that the council's legitimate aims in managing absence, deploying staff appropriately, and protecting health and safety justified the dismissal as a proportionate response. The reasonable-adjustments claim also failed: the tribunal held the pleaded requirement to be fully fit for the substantive role was not applied, and that the Management of Absence Policy did not place her at a substantial disadvantage on the facts found. The tribunal noted that complaints relating to matters before 7 September 2017 would in any event have been out of time, and all claims were dismissed with no monetary award.