Miss S Goodier v Pallotine Missionary Sisters of the Catholic Apostolate — 2022

Miss Goodier worked as a care worker for Pallotine from 14 December 2016. The tribunal accepted that she had obsessive compulsive disorder, intrusive and ruminative thoughts, generalised anxiety disorder and depression, that Pallotine knew of those conditions by February 2019, and that a risk assessment was completed on 13 February 2019. It found the earlier tensions with colleague Vaida, the rota changes and the employer's attempts to separate staff and explore different working patterns were difficult, but did not amount to a fundamental breach of contract or disability discrimination. It did, however, criticise a 7 April 2019 letter as harsher in tone and as singling her out.

The constructive unfair dismissal claim succeeded because of the events of 25 September 2019. The tribunal found that a meeting which had been presented as a clarification about medication errors expanded into discussion of a repositioning record and a sleeping-on-duty allegation without proper notice, without telling Miss Goodier it was disciplinary, without explaining whether she could be accompanied, and without a proper investigation. It held that she was taken by surprise, felt ambushed, and resigned immediately after the meeting. The earlier staffing and rota issues, including suggestions about days, nights and Keele Crescent, were not found to be the reason for the resignation.

The tribunal accepted that Pallotine had a potentially fair misconduct reason if the record-keeping and sleeping allegations were pursued properly, but found there had been no fair procedure. It accepted that the respondent genuinely believed misconduct had occurred, but also found there had been no proper investigation in line with the ACAS Code. The tribunal assessed that there was a 50% chance Miss Goodier would have been dismissed after a fair process, made a 20% reduction for contributory fault, and stated that a 20% uplift should apply for procedural failings, with remedy to be determined at a later hearing. It also treated the later confidentiality and data-breach point as arising after resignation and not relevant to the dismissal claim.

On disability discrimination, the tribunal held that allegations before 16 September 2019 were out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. The in-time claims under sections 26, 13, 15 and 20-21 Equality Act 2010 all failed. For harassment, it accepted that some conduct, including restrictive grievance handling and the refusal to allow set nights, was unwanted, but found it was not related to disability and did not create the prohibited environment. For direct discrimination it found no less favourable treatment by named or hypothetical comparators. For section 15 it accepted that Miss Goodier was more vulnerable to stress and pressure and that Pallotine knew this, but found the accepted unfavourable treatment around the 25 September meeting was not because of that vulnerability. For reasonable adjustments it held that the grievance and disciplinary procedures were PCPs, but that the disadvantage arose from the way they were applied rather than from the PCPs themselves.