Angela Gates v Thermos UK Limited AT A HEARING — 2020

Angela Gates had been employed since 2012 in a part-time customer services role and had significant periods of absence because of depression and caring responsibilities for her twin brother. The tribunal found that the respondent had no written attendance management policy, had in practice paid full company sick pay for extended periods, and had been sympathetic to her absences and requests for flexibility before the events in late 2019. It also found that the respondent was considering a move into direct online sales and had begun to consider how the claimant's role might be managed in future.

The constructive unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed. The tribunal found there was no failure to consult the claimant about the strategic B2C decision, because that decision was not part of her contractual responsibility and the respondent intended to involve her in implementation once the decision had been taken. It accepted that Mr Snape held a lawful protected conversation under section 111A ERA 1996 about an exit package, that no disciplinary threat was made, that the claimant's role was not withdrawn or set up to fail, and that the later absence management meeting on 7 January 2020 was proper and non-disciplinary. The claimant resigned with immediate effect on 9 January 2020 after seeking further clarification the previous evening, but the tribunal found no fundamental breach of contract and no last straw.

The disability discrimination claims were also dismissed. On direct discrimination under section 13 EqA 2010, the tribunal rejected the alleged comments about discipline, statutory sick pay, and removal of flexibility for caring for her brother. On section 15 EqA 2010, it accepted that the offer of a termination package and the later sickness management steps were connected with managing ongoing absence, but found the respondent had a legitimate aim of maintaining an efficient workforce and that the protected conversation process and subsequent management were proportionate. On the reasonable adjustments complaint under sections 20 and 21 EqA 2010, the tribunal found that the respondent had already shown substantial flexibility, had not removed support that was actually being provided, and that the suggested adjustment of considering mental health triggers was too imprecise. No monetary award was made.