Claimant v Woodhouse v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council — 2023

Miss V Woodhouse, a social worker employed by Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council, resigned on 14 June 2021 and the tribunal held that she had been constructively dismissed for the purposes of section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996. It found that the respondent had not complied with an earlier grievance recommendation for a formal handover and written transfer plan when she moved back to the East Team in September 2020, although it also found that the respondent did provide some support at that stage, including reduced duty cover, buddies, supervision and a reduced caseload.

The tribunal held that there was no failure to make reasonable adjustments while the claimant was unfit for work between March 2019 and April 2020, and that the phased return to work in IDT between April and July 2020 was a reasonable adjustment. The finding of liability turned on later events, especially from around January 2021, when the claimant remained unable to manage the East Team role and sought a return to IDT. The tribunal found that occupational health did not say that a move to IDT was medically contraindicated, that vacancies or agency cover existed there, and that a transfer would have been a practicable adjustment.

The tribunal concluded that the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments by refusing to allow the claimant to move to IDT and by failing to acquire the equipment recommended through Access to Work / DWP. It rejected some of the claimant's allegations, including the alleged comment said to have been made at the 29 January 2021 meeting, and it held that the January 2021 advertising of agency staff was not, by itself, a breach. But the continuing refusal to permit a move to IDT, alongside the failure to action the auxiliary aids, was found to be without reasonable and proper cause and to have destroyed trust and confidence.

The tribunal held that those breaches continued up to the resignation date and that the claimant resigned in response to them. It found no reduction for conduct, rejected the respondent's suggested basis for a deduction, and listed the matter for a separate remedy hearing. No monetary award was determined in this judgment.