Jonathan Linton v The University of Sheffield — 2021

The claimant, Jonathan Linton, was employed by the University of Sheffield from 1 September 2016 as a professor in the School of Management. The tribunal found that his role carried research, teaching, leadership and management expectations, and that his initial protected research time reduced after the first two years. A preliminary hearing had already found that he was disabled from 26 September 2019 onwards by reason of work-related stress and anxiety.

The tribunal rejected the claimant's case that his 2018 email correspondence about the Work Allocation Framework amounted to protected disclosures, finding that he was largely pursuing his own workload allocation and buy-out position. It also rejected the claim that the University breached contract by placing on file the 23 May 2019 letter about his wife's teaching. The tribunal found that the claimant had not obtained the required approval for external teaching, that Prof Oglethorpe had reasonable and proper cause to raise the issue, and that the later offer to remove the letter if due process could be shown meant the response was not repudiatory.

On the grievance and dignity at work issues, the tribunal found that the respondent did not apply a practice of dismissing complaints without investigation. It accepted that the claimant was repeatedly given routes to raise concerns, including discussion with Prof Watkins, Dr Merrywest and later Prof Finn, but often did not accept the answers he received and continued to raise the same issues with different managers. The tribunal also found that the PhD studentship emails were requests for assistance rather than protected disclosures, and that the grievance responses in May 2020, including the reference to vexatious conduct, were not a PCP and were made in the context of the claimant escalating matters that were already being addressed.

In the sickness absence process, the tribunal found that Dr Merrywest and Prof Finn made repeated attempts to discuss the claimant's health, occupational health advice and a stress risk assessment, and that the use of HR support was sensible in the circumstances. It held that asking occupational health about a likely return-to-work date was a normal sickness-management step and that the claimant was not required to return before a stress risk assessment was completed. The capability hearing in October 2020 and the later request for updated occupational health advice did not show a breach of the sickness absence policy or an intention to end the contract.

The tribunal dismissed the indirect discrimination claim because most of the pleaded matters were not PCPs at all, and because the claimant had not shown group or individual disadvantage from the two practices that could potentially qualify. It dismissed the discrimination arising from disability claim because it did not find that the respondent had treated the claimant unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of his disability. Finally, it held that there had been no cumulative breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, no valid last straw, and no constructive dismissal when the claimant resigned on 4 November 2020. No remedy was awarded.