Mr Andrew Davies v Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council — 2024

Mr Andrew Davies worked for Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council from 1993 until 20 April 2022. The tribunal held by majority that he was dismissed for the purposes of section 95(1)(c) ERA when he resigned after the events of 15 to 16 March 2022, and that the dismissal was unfair. It rejected the council's case that he had resigned voluntarily and also rejected the argument that the changes to the Principal Building Surveyor role amounted to an actual dismissal under section 95(1)(a) or to a replacement contract of the kind discussed in Hogg v Dover College.

The constructive dismissal issue turned on Mr Davies' request for clarification about whether he would be expected to manage both the BC and BLRM teams or return to the PBS role. The tribunal found that Mr Addison did not answer those questions, withdrew the hybrid option, and said the claimant had had ample time to respond when he had in fact remained engaged in the process. The majority treated that response, and the failure to provide the updated key requirements document Mr Watson had asked for, as a repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. Employment Judge Cookson dissented on constructive dismissal, finding the conduct unfair and unreasonable but not serious enough to destroy trust and confidence.

On disability, the tribunal found that by March 2022 Mr Davies was disabled by anxiety and depression and that the council knew or ought to have known of that disability from the occupational health evidence and the length of his sickness absence. The section 15 complaint succeeded because the failure to respond to the clarification request on 16 March 2022 was held to be unfavourable treatment arising from his inability to manage additional teams and duties. The reasoning differed between the majority and the judge, but all members reached the same outcome that the section 15 claim was well founded.

The reasonable adjustments complaint failed because the pleaded PCP, requiring management or supervision of both the BC and BLRM teams, was held not to have been applied to the claimant at the relevant time. The tribunal found that managing both teams was part of the proposed hybrid role, which Mr Davies was not taking up, and that the PBS role itself did not require him to manage both teams. The age discrimination complaints were withdrawn at the start of submissions. The wrongful dismissal claim was not finally determined in this judgment and further submissions were invited on notice and affirmation. No monetary award was recorded in the reserved judgment.