Ms M Scott v Wyre Borough Council — 2022

The tribunal extended time for the reasonable adjustments allegations under section 123(1)(b) EqA 2010, applying the approach in Robertson, British Coal v Keeble and Rathakrishnan, because the short delay had not adversely affected the evidence. It accepted that the claimant had a long-term stress and anxiety condition that amounted to disability.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the dismissal was by reason of redundancy within section 139 ERA 1996. It accepted that Lancashire County Council funding of about £170,000 a year for the Care and Repair Service was ending, that the respondent's costs for the service were about £300,000 a year, and that the proposed restructure deleted the claimant's grade 11 post and another grade 11 post in favour of a single grade 12 housing manager role. Applying section 98(4) ERA 1996 and the Polkey and Williams v Compair Maxam guidance, the tribunal held that the respondent's consultation, consideration of alternatives and appeal process were fair overall, even though it identified flaws including incomplete signatures on documents, a lack of meeting notes, and an incorrectly addressed appeal letter.

The section 15 EqA 2010 claim was dismissed because the tribunal found that the claimant was invited, not required, to attend the appeal hearing while off sick. It accepted that occupational health advised a two-week delay, but the hearing was delayed for about six weeks, and the claimant prepared for and attended the appeal. The tribunal therefore found no unfavourable treatment as alleged, so issues 10 to 13 did not require determination.

The reasonable adjustments claim under sections 20 and 21 EqA 2010 was also dismissed. The tribunal rejected PCPs 2, 3 and 5 as no more than complaints about how the claimant was treated on this occasion, found PCP 1 was mitigated by the occupational health delay, accepted PCP 4 as a workplace occupational health practice but held the respondent did not know and could not reasonably have known of any relevant disadvantage, and rejected PCP 6 because the process already allowed a reasonable consultation period and adjustments such as a written response and a delayed appeal. PCP 7 was withdrawn during submissions.