Mrs W Canning v The Chief Constable of South Wales Police — 2025

Mrs W Canning remained employed by the Chief Constable of South Wales Police and relied on menopause symptoms as her disability, which was conceded. The tribunal accepted that she had a period of sickness absence from 13 January 2023, that an informal supportive attendance plan was agreed on 21 March 2023, and that she returned earlier than planned on 23 May 2023. It also found that, after her return, she worked substantial overtime and that her line management later transferred to Inspector Williams in September 2023.

On indirect disability discrimination, the tribunal accepted the pleaded PCPs and found that the claimant was disadvantaged by the decision not to link the earlier and later absences and by the formal attendance targets, because she was placed into a Stage 1 process and issued with a written improvement notice. It held, however, that South Wales Police had legitimate aims in managing sickness absence and maintaining an effective police service, and that the means used were proportionate. The tribunal relied on the flexibility built into the absence procedure, the claimant's substantial absence history, the gap between the absences, and her return to work with significant overtime. The indirect discrimination claim was dismissed.

The tribunal also considered discrimination arising from disability under s.15 EqA 2010. It accepted that the sickness absence and the 2 January 2024 hospital appointment arose in consequence of disability, and that commencing the Stage 1 process and issuing the written improvement notice was unfavourable treatment. It rejected the further allegation that she had been required to take TOIL or leave for the hospital appointment, finding instead that she was not required to do so and chose annual leave after the exchange with Inspector Williams. The tribunal held that the unfavourable treatment was justified and dismissed the s.15 claim.

For reasonable adjustments, the tribunal accepted that the strict application of the absence management policy and the attendance plan placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage and that knowledge was not in dispute. It nevertheless rejected each proposed adjustment. Automatic unlimited linking of all future disability-related absences was found not to be reasonable, homeworking was not a live adjustment on the facts because she already worked from home and attended headquarters infrequently, extra breaks would not have removed the disadvantage, and the appointment-related adjustment failed because she was not required to use TOIL or leave. The harassment complaint based on the 19 December 2023 email exchange also failed: the conduct was unwanted, but the tribunal found no violation of dignity or hostile environment and accepted that the manager was entitled to seek context and clarification. All claims were dismissed and no monetary award was made.