Mrs L Johnson v Manchester City Council — 2019

The tribunal held that the effective termination was the dismissal in April 2019, not the earlier October 2018 dismissal, because the claimant had been reinstated and the parties then proceeded on the basis that the earlier dismissal was null and void. On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal found that the respondent had shown conduct as the reason for dismissal and genuinely believed the claimant had failed to arrange the required strategy meeting for child AF.

The tribunal found that belief was formed after a diligent and thorough investigation and that any earlier error about the claimant's caseload was corrected on appeal. Although the claimant was a long-serving employee and had mitigation, the tribunal concluded that the failure to organise the strategy meeting in a child protection context was sufficiently serious that summary dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.

On disability discrimination, the tribunal accepted that dismissal was unfavourable treatment but found that the claimant had not shown that her failure to arrange the strategy meeting arose in consequence of her osteoarthritis or depression. It also found that, although the transport and office equipment PCPs substantially disadvantaged her because of osteoarthritis, the respondent had not failed to make reasonable adjustments: it was reasonable to require office attendance while the claimant was on an action plan, the respondent was entitled to understand that the claimant was progressing the Access to Work application, and specialist equipment had already been put in train before her suspension.

The respondent conceded that it had made unlawful deductions from wages and had breached contract by failing to pay the claimant at the correct rate, including in relation to pay protection, increments and holiday pay in lieu. The tribunal did not quantify those sums in this judgment and indicated that a further remedy hearing might still be required. The section 38 claim failed because the tribunal found that written particulars had been provided.