Ms MA Stevenson v Citizens Advice County Durham — 2020

Ms MA Stevenson worked for Citizens Advice County Durham from 6 June 2016 as Training Coordinator in the DurhamWorks project. After an email from EG on 31 July 2019, she raised a grievance. The tribunal found that the respondent dealt with that grievance through informal and formal stages, upheld the grievance in part, and then put in place agreed measures including separating the claimant and EG at different sites, a team charter, a communication policy, Dignity at Work training, and temporary monitoring of emails. When the claimant raised further concerns in January and February 2020, the tribunal accepted that Ms Arragon carried out a thorough investigation and that the respondent continued to offer mediation, counselling and other support.

On the unfair dismissal claim, brought on a constructive dismissal basis, the tribunal applied the Western Excavating, Woods and Malik line of authority and asked whether the respondent had acted in a way that destroyed or seriously damaged mutual trust and confidence without reasonable and proper cause. It found that the matters relied on by the claimant, including the 4 November 2019 agenda item, the alleged conversation with the new employee NC on 13 January 2020, the 15 January 2020 minutes, and the alleged refusal to allow a family member at meetings, did not amount to a repudiatory breach, whether individually or cumulatively. The tribunal also found that the respondent had taken reasonable and proportionate steps after the first grievance and that the claimant had not asked to be accompanied by a family member at the relevant meetings.

On the disability discrimination claim, the claimant relied on her hearing impairment and said the respondent should have allowed a family member to accompany her as an auxiliary aid and/or because of a practice of not allowing family members at grievance hearings. The tribunal accepted that a family member could in principle amount to an auxiliary aid, but found that the claimant had not raised a family-member request at the relevant times and had instead referred to a work colleague or outside person in her written response. It held that the respondent did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that the claimant was likely to be placed at a substantial disadvantage, so the section 20 duty to make reasonable adjustments did not arise. Both claims were dismissed and no monetary award was made.