Mr S Lewis v Sony Europe BV — 2020

Mr Lewis worked for Sony as a technician from 1 September 1998. In December 2018 the respondent temporarily moved the technicians working on a particular product from a day-shift pattern to a two-shift pattern because production was running at a high rate and repairs were not being completed quickly enough. The tribunal found that, before 14 March 2019, Ms Evans and Ms Jones did not know that the shift change was affecting Mr Lewis's tinnitus; until then they believed his objections were linked to other commitments, and Mr Lewis had not raised health concerns when the change was announced.

By 11 March 2019 Mr Lewis had sleep difficulties and saw his GP, who later recorded that severe tinnitus and insomnia were markedly exacerbated by late shifts and that an earlier day-shift pattern would be beneficial. After he gave the fit note to Ms Evans on 15 March, Sony arranged an urgent occupational health assessment. The occupational health report said that, if accommodations could be made for him to stay on a day shift, that would be advocated, but it also described the matter as an organisational outcome rather than a medical one and did not say he could not work afternoons. At the meeting on 22 March, when Mr Lewis said he had suicidal thoughts, the meeting was adjourned, HR advice was sought, he was encouraged to see his GP urgently, and he was offered day-shift work for that week.

The tribunal held that Sony had acted reasonably once it became aware of the tinnitus-related issues. It found that the temporary shift change was a business decision to meet production deadlines, that the managers were entitled to interpret the medical advice as they did, and that there was no conduct calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust and confidence. The tribunal also found that, by the time Mr Lewis resigned on 10 June 2019, he knew the technicians were reverting to day shifts and that the most likely reason for leaving was that he had found alternative employment starting on 8 July 2019. The claim therefore failed, and the tribunal held that he was neither constructively dismissed nor unfairly dismissed.