Ms H Young v Medway NHS Foundation Trust — 2023

The claimant had worked part-time as a band 4 endoscopy scheduler since 2013. The tribunal found that, after the covid pandemic and management changes in the endoscopy department, relations between the claimant and Ms Arneil, and later Ms Weeks, deteriorated. It accepted that there were two loose groups in the department, but found that the split was not defined by age or part-time status in the way alleged. It also found that the claimant and some supporting witnesses were prone to overstate matters, while Ms Arneil and Ms Weeks were generally the more credible witnesses, though Ms Weeks was inexperienced and at times rude.

Only some of the claimant's factual allegations were made out. The tribunal found that the WATC scheduling work was moved from the claimant to Ms Weeks and Ms Meade around May 2020 because the covid-related increase in work required two full-time schedulers. It also found that the claimant was given walk around duty, that Ms Weeks was on occasions rude, that Ms Weeks stopped seeking the claimant's advice once her role changed, that the department later operated an unsatisfactory verbal-update system, that Ms Arneil removed the claimant as a Facebook friend after being upset by comments about her daughter's medical appointment, that the claimant and Ms Arneil ignored one another at Donna Innes' retirement party, that the notice of improvement over mobile phone use was justified by a personal call, that the claimant's working hours changed to one late shift a week because the service needed cover to 5pm, and that the monthly team meeting moved to Thursdays because Ms Weeks had Tuesday training. The remaining allegations were not proved.

On the age claims, the tribunal held that the proved conduct was unwanted but not related to age and did not amount to harassment. It also held that the claimant had not shown facts from which it could conclude, without more, that any less favourable treatment was because of age. On the PTW Regulations claim, it accepted that the claimant was a part-time worker and that comparable full-time workers existed, but concluded that only the WATC work reallocation and related role change amounted to less favourable treatment and that this was objectively justified by the needs of the service during the pandemic. The tribunal therefore dismissed the age discrimination, age harassment, and part-time worker claims.

On constructive dismissal, the tribunal applied the implied term of mutual trust and confidence and found reasonable and proper cause for the matters it had accepted, including the role changes, the hours change, the move in meeting days, and the notice of improvement. It held that the proved conduct, taken together, was not calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence, and that the claimant's last-straw case was too vague and added insufficiently. The claim therefore failed, and because no dismissal was established the unfair dismissal complaint also failed. No remedy hearing was needed and no monetary award was made.