Mrs L Quinn v Boots Opticians Professional Services Limited — 2021

Mrs Quinn worked as an optical consultant at Boots Opticians' Macclesfield store from 4 January 2014 until she resigned with effect from 10 April 2020 after giving notice on 13 March 2020. She had multiple sclerosis, which the respondent accepted amounted to a disability, and the tribunal heard evidence about recurrent absences, infusion treatment, and management of her attendance under Boots' absence policy. The tribunal found that the management of her condition had been ad hoc and piecemeal, that she was not given sufficient reassurance about her position, and that the failure to record agreed unpaid leave absences as sickness absence contributed to her anxiety about an informal review.

The tribunal also found that the Macclesfield premises had persistent drainage and sewerage problems, particularly during 2019 and into 2020, including leaks, bad smells, periods without usable toilet facilities, fly infestation, and sewage-related water ingress. It held that Boots failed to provide a safe working environment and that the business-as-usual response to these issues failed to maintain the implied term of trust and confidence. The tribunal rejected the allegation of a general lack of confidentiality, finding insufficient evidence of a management culture that failed to respect confidentiality, save for one incident in which a manager shared information with a colleague and later apologised.

On constructive unfair dismissal, the tribunal applied the Western Excavating approach and accepted that the cumulative matters amounted to a fundamental breach of contract. It found that the events of 10 March 2020, when a customer with flu-like symptoms and a recent return from Malta was allowed to attend the practice, were the final straw that prompted Mrs Quinn to resign. The tribunal accepted that her resignation was in response to the breach, that she did not delay, and that she would probably have remained in work but for those events. It rejected any suggestion that she would have been dismissed anyway.

On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal applied the Environment Agency v Rowan framework and held that the surviving PCP was requiring employees to work in an unsafe environment. It did not accept that working upstairs in administration or the use of lieu time for medical appointments amounted to PCPs in the statutory sense. The tribunal found that the unsafe-working-environment PCP placed Mrs Quinn at a substantial disadvantage because of her suppressed immunity during infusion treatment, that Boots knew of her disability and treatment, and that reasonable adjustments should have included more active risk management. It held that the complaint was in time as a continuing act from June 2019 to the resignation date. Quantification of the successful complaints was left to a later remedy hearing.