- MR R RYAN FOR THE v - Mr J Boyd — 2019

The tribunal found that the core dispute arose from Mr Stewart's proposal to restructure the PCET team. It accepted that the proposal was considered through the respondent's process, including OMG and VCB meetings, and that the claimants were given substantial information and extra time for consultation. The proposal assumed three full-time staff costing £180,902; the revised structure was said to require 1.4 FTE at £84,460 plus sessional observers. The claimants advanced counter-calculations of £115,633 and argued savings were only £31,193, or £2,193 if observer costs were £29,000, but the tribunal held that the restructuring was rationally supportable and that the VCB fairly approved it twice. The process never reached stage 2 individual consultation.

The tribunal rejected the central constructive dismissal case that the restructure was a sham to target the claimants. It found no evidence that Mr Stewart's real purpose was to engineer their removal, and held that the related matters complained of by each claimant were rationally open to him. For Ms Venencia, those matters included the continuation and later removal of LFTHE duties, TOIL and holiday disputes, timetable changes and the handling of her grievances. For Ms O'Sullivan, they included the MA Programme Leader appointment and the IPG issue. The tribunal concluded that disagreement with the outcome did not itself show a lack of genuine consultation.

On the grievance and complaint process, the tribunal accepted that there was some force in the submission that Ms Medlam and Ms Casella had an appearance of bias because both had been involved with the VCB's approval of the restructure. However, applying Watson v University of Strathclyde, it held that the respondent had reasonable and proper cause to use senior internal decision-makers for complaints about the Head of School and university management, and it found no actual bias. The tribunal also found that Ms Medlam's investigations were serious and thorough and that the complaints and grievances were not shown to be procedurally unfair in the way alleged.

Ms Venencia's disability discrimination claim failed. The tribunal accepted that she was disabled by reason of a long-term recurring mental health condition, but it held that the pleaded reasonable adjustment was really a challenge to a specific decision to keep Ms Medlam as investigating officer, not a PCP, relying on Nottingham City Transport v Harvey. It also found no evidence of a substantial disadvantage. Ms Venencia's harassment allegations under s26 Equality Act 2010 were withdrawn during the hearing and dismissed by consent. No monetary remedy was awarded because the substantive claims were dismissed or withdrawn.