Miss G A Cairns v Daemma Trading Ltd T/a Cash Converters — 2022

Miss Cairns had worked for Cash Converters since 23 November 2009 and was a manager at the Newcastle store. On 5 September 2019 Mr Lowes issued a letter of concern criticising her working pattern, contribution, dress code and overall attitude. The tribunal found the approach harsh bordering on oppressive because it denied her a right of reply and could have been dealt with through a formal disciplinary process.

From 9 September 2019 Miss Cairns was repeatedly signed off with stress, anxiety, low mood and depression. A GP report dated 13 January 2020 said she had severe anxiety due to work-related stress, that face-to-face meetings could trigger panic attacks, and that her symptoms were linked to her work situation. The tribunal accepted that she had a mental impairment with substantial, long-term effects and found that Cash Converters knew, or ought reasonably to have known, of her disability by 25 January 2020 when the report was forwarded to Holly Blue.

The tribunal was critical of the handling of her grievance and appeal. Mr Pilgrim used pro forma questions, did not take full contemporaneous notes, did not return to Miss Cairns for comment, and made positive findings by preferring management accounts without further investigation. Mr Harrison also largely accepted the witness accounts at face value, did not properly examine the concerns in the letter of concern, and did not consider changes to absence management, occupational health or other support.

For constructive unfair dismissal, the tribunal applied the implied term of trust and confidence, the five questions in Kaur, and the last-straw approach in Omilaju. It held that the 18 November 2020 SOSR invitation and 23 November 2020 follow-up email were threatening, accusatory and unsupported by any consideration of alternatives such as occupational health or a phased return. Miss Cairns resigned on 24 November 2020 in response to that breach, so the constructive dismissal claim succeeded.

For disability discrimination, the tribunal found that from 25 January 2020 the failure to address the GP report and the 11 May 2020 email about reduced hours and no furlough were unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, including her sickness absence, inability to commit to a return date, difficulty engaging in return-to-work discussions and adverse reactions to correspondence. It rejected justification, accepted the section 20 reasonable-adjustments claim, and found that PCPs such as involving the same managers, blunt correspondence, strict absence management and formal capability or SOSR steps placed her at a substantial disadvantage without reasonable steps being taken. The award on the disability claims was combined and not split between the section 15 and section 20 findings. The tribunal awarded £29,029.60 for constructive unfair dismissal and £49,007.25 on the disability claims, including £20,639.08 loss of earnings, £3,012 pension loss, £20,000 injury to feelings and £5,356.17 interest.