Ms M Tams v HM Prison and Probation Service — 2025

Ms Tams was a Band 3 Residential Support Worker at Plas Y Wern. The respondent conceded that she had a musculoskeletal disability affecting her shoulders, right knee and lower back, including right sided sciatica and piriformis syndrome. The tribunal heard claims of constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination arising from the respondent's disciplinary process and the handling of workplace adjustments, including an ergonomic chair, footrest and monitor.

The disability discrimination claims were found to have been presented out of time for acts on or before 11 January 2024, and the tribunal was not persuaded it was just and equitable to extend time. On the merits, the direct discrimination claim failed because the disciplinary process started after complaints by colleagues and was not because of disability; the comparators relied on were not materially the same, and the tribunal found the claimant would have been treated the same way in a comparable situation.

The tribunal also rejected the s.15 claim. It accepted that the claimant's need for a correctly measured ergonomic chair arose in consequence of her disability, but found the unfavourable treatment was not because of that need. The respondent's aims of maintaining dignity and respect, health and safety, and fair and consistent discipline were accepted as legitimate, and the investigation and disciplinary process were held to be proportionate. Allegation 2 was dropped, allegations 4 and 5 were not proven, and allegations 1 and 3 were upheld at first instance, with the appeal later reducing allegation 3 to a first written warning and dropping allegation 1.

On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal accepted that the respondent had a duty to make adjustments but found the delay in providing an ergonomic chair was caused by the claimant's failure to provide the measurements and medical detail requested so an appropriate chair could be sourced. It found she already had a footrest and a suitable monitor at her allocated desk, and it rejected the case that those aids were missing. The tribunal therefore dismissed the ss.20-21 claim, both on time limit grounds and, alternatively, on the merits.

The constructive dismissal claim failed because the tribunal found no repudiatory breach of contract and no breach of the implied term of trust and confidence or the duty to conduct a fair disciplinary process. It held there was no obligation to discuss the allegations informally before investigation, the delay and introduction of some late evidence did not go to the root of the contract, and the claimant resigned after accepting alternative employment with Age Concern and following the appeal outcome, rather than in response to any repudiatory breach.