Mrs C Browne v Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust — 2025

The claimant, Mrs C Browne, worked for Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust as a registered advanced practitioner nurse and had depression and anxiety, which the respondent conceded amounted to disability. She resigned on 7 July 2022 with effect from 29 July 2022. The Tribunal found that the respondent’s management of her grievance breached the implied term of trust and confidence: the grievance concerned her role and conditions of employment and should have been treated as a “resolution” matter, but Donna Robinson treated it as a “respect and civility” matter, with the result that the claimant was denied a copy of the investigation report and denied an appeal after waiting 16 months for an outcome. The Tribunal found that this was a fundamental breach, that the claimant resigned in response to it, and that she had not affirmed the contract before resigning. The unfair dismissal complaint therefore succeeded on a constructive dismissal basis.

The Tribunal rejected other alleged elements of the constructive dismissal complaint. It found that Nicola Lamont’s 28 June 2019 email saying the claimant had been asked not to attend the clinic informally was not a breach of confidentiality because it did not refer to the claimant’s health or wellbeing. It also found that Dale Williams’ investigation was not poor or flawed, noting the claimant accepted the report was thorough, and that the respondent had regard to the claimant’s wellbeing and disability during the return-to-work process, including through Natalie Sutton’s support. It accepted that Zoe Prince did not breach confidentiality over the potential referral to the respondent’s mental health service.

The discrimination arising from disability complaint was dismissed. The Tribunal found that Nicola Lamont told the claimant on 5 February 2021 that there was no evidence she had been working as an advanced practitioner before sick leave and that this position also removed her prescribing rights, which was unfavourable treatment. It also found that the claimant’s sickness absence from July 2019 arose in consequence of her disability. However, the Tribunal found that Nicola Lamont did not downgrade the claimant because of sickness absence; rather, Nicola Lamont formed her view from an audit of the Health and Wellbeing/clozapine clinics and documents held about the claimant’s role, and would have done so even if the claimant had been at work.

The harassment related to disability complaint was dismissed. The Tribunal accepted that several matters were unwanted conduct, including restrictions on the claimant attending the clinic while on sick leave, comments about her role and base on 5 February 2021, the advertisement of her role, and the constructive dismissal. It found that the clinic-attendance restrictions, the 5 February 2021 discussion, and the constructive dismissal were not related to disability. It found that the advertisement of the claimant’s role was related to disability because her disability-related sickness absence created the need to advertise cover, but the purpose was to find fixed-term cover and, given the assurances that the role was temporary and budget remained for her return, it was not reasonable for the conduct to have the prohibited effect.