Mrs B Smith v Bestway Panacea Holdings Limited — 2024

Mrs B Smith worked for Bestway Panacea Holdings Limited as a delivery driver from April 2013 and resigned on 11 November 2020. The tribunal found that her resignation was prompted by learning that pharmacist Mr Modi was leaving Whaley Bridge, because she believed she would not be able to work with the remaining staff and feared they would blame her for his departure. It rejected her case that she resigned in response to the alleged breaches of trust and confidence pleaded in the issues list, and found that she had expressed a wish to continue working at Whaley Bridge on 4 November and again after the disciplinary process on 10 November 2020.

The tribunal accepted that there were genuine problems in Disley, including the operation of Flexipod, poor signal in some areas, inefficient routing, and delays in the Disley pharmacy preparing delivery items. It also found that Mr Cornes was slow to deal with some of the claimant's concerns and was poor in handling her request to reduce her hours, but held that these matters were not the cause of her resignation. The tribunal found that any alleged breaches were waived when she said she wanted to continue working at Whaley Bridge, and that the respondent had not constructively dismissed her.

On the disability discrimination claim, the tribunal first held that the complaint had been presented out of time, but extended time on a just and equitable basis because the claimant was unrepresented and her claim form already referred to ill health and the Equality Act 2010. Substantively, it accepted that the respondent had a provision, criterion or practice requiring employees to work their contractual hours, and that this could place the claimant at a substantial disadvantage by making her more tired and more prone to migraines. However, the tribunal found that the respondent did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that Patent Foramen Ovale or hemiplegic migraine caused that disadvantage, and that knowledge of Essential Thrombocytosis did not establish knowledge of the relevant disadvantage. The duty to make reasonable adjustments therefore did not arise, and the disability discrimination claim failed. No remedy was awarded.