Mr Jarvis v Serco Ltd By CVP — 2022

Mr Jarvis worked for Serco Ltd from 26 October 2009 to 31 July 2020 and had been Industries Manager from 15 May 2015. The tribunal identified two strands to the claim: the handling of flexible working and the decision to move him into a revised role after a reorganisation. It recorded that his contract allowed the company to change job title and reporting line where necessary and to require him to work in any other capacity reasonably within his abilities, and that there was no contractual requirement to benchmark the role before he started it.

On flexible working, Mr Jarvis first applied on 4 November 2019 to work three days per week, then amended that to four days per week. That revised arrangement was approved on a trial basis from 6 January 2020 and later confirmed. During the COVID-19 period he agreed to revert temporarily to five days per week to help cover work, but the tribunal found that his email did not make clear to the respondent that he intended that change to be temporary. When he later objected, the tribunal found that the policy said applications could normally be made only once in 12 months, while the form said one application in 12 months, and that he could have made a further application but did not do so.

On the revised role, the tribunal found that Mr Teesdale explained that Mr Jarvis would remain within the same broad function, with changing priorities and some added responsibilities, and that the respondent did not force him to take the role or threaten dismissal or other sanction if he declined. Mr Jarvis resigned on 18 June 2020 after saying he felt bullied and wanted a job description and benchmarking before accepting the change. His grievance was partially upheld in that the grievance officer accepted that a formal review of flexible working and a success profile for benchmarking should have taken place, but did not accept the allegation of bullying or the proposed resolution. The appeal upheld the grievance findings. The tribunal concluded that the respondent had not committed a fundamental breach of contract and that the constructive dismissal claim failed.