In person For the v Respondent — 2021

Ms E Campbell worked as a radiotherapy receptionist from 30 November 2009 until her dismissal on 18 July 2019. The respondent decided to increase reception opening hours after acquiring a new 3T MRI scanner and proposed new working patterns, later narrowing the proposal to a fixed 9:00 am to 5:30 pm shift with late-shift cover for about eight weeks each year. The claimant said the proposed changes would disrupt the routine she used to manage the side effects of hypertension medication.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant was a disabled person by reason of hypertension, but it rejected the direct disability discrimination claim. It found that the offer of part-time hours was a genuine option intended to keep her in work, that there was no attempt to prevent her grievance appeal, no attempt to influence occupational health to produce a favourable report, no evidence that anyone said the offer would be withdrawn if she worked until age 70, and no poor handling of the subject access request. On the age claim, the tribunal found the respondent’s treatment was explained by the business change and reception cover needs, not by age.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found the reason for dismissal was the claimant’s refusal to agree to the contractual variation. It held that this was a potentially fair some other substantial reason dismissal because the change was driven by a sound business reason. The consultation process before dismissal was found to be very fair overall, including the provision of written information, meetings, and occupational health input.

The tribunal nevertheless held that the dismissal was unfair because the appeal stage failed to do the job it was meant to do. It found that the appeal was so inadequate that it did not properly address the claimant’s key concerns or investigate them at even a basic level. The tribunal concluded that a better appeal would not have changed the outcome, so it applied a 100% Polkey deduction to compensatory loss. No monetary award was quantified in this judgment.