Case 2500346/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Ms A Short v Northumbrian Water Group Limited — 2022

Case reference: 2500346/2021
Decision date: 3 November 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Johnson
Venue: Newcastle-upon-Tyne Hearing Centre
Panel members: Ms J Blesic, Ms S Mee

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms A Short

Respondent

Northumbrian Water Group Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Ms A Short worked for Northumbrian Water Limited as a Production Operator (Flexible) from January 2018. The respondent accepted that she had bipolar rapid cycling disorder, anxiety and depression, and post traumatic stress disorder, and accepted that it knew she was disabled from the Occupational Health report dated 14 May 2019. The Tribunal found the respondent's witnesses to be clear, consistent and supportive, and preferred their evidence where it conflicted with the claimant's account.

The Tribunal dismissed the first disability complaint about night shifts, lone working and health-and-safety critical work because it found the respondent had no actual or constructive knowledge of the disability before 14 May 2019, and once the Occupational Health report was received those duties were removed. It also dismissed the complaints about removal from the flexible role, redeployment, the Cramlington interview and the alleged redeployment time limit. On those issues the Tribunal found the respondent acted because the claimant could not safely perform the duties at that time, that she agreed the steps were in her best interests, or that the alleged time limit was never actually imposed.

The final disability complaint, about longer commuting distances in redeployment, failed because the Tribunal found no provision, criterion or practice requiring a particular location and no substantial disadvantage was shown. The constructive dismissal complaint also failed. The Tribunal held that none of the respondent's actions amounted to a repudiatory breach or a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, and that there was no last straw. The claimant resigned on 29 January 2021, and all complaints were dismissed with no monetary award.

Claims and outcomes

7 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	Allegation (1): the requirement to work night shifts, undertake lone working and health-and-safety critical work was accepted as a PCP, but the tribunal found the respondent did not know of the disability until the Occupational Health report of 14 May 2019 and removed the requirement once it had that knowledge.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	Allegation (2): removal from night shifts, lone working and health-and-safety critical work from February 2020 was not direct discrimination or s.15 treatment; the tribunal found it was because the claimant could not safely perform those duties and, in any event, it was a proportionate step to protect health and safety.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	Allegation (3): placing the claimant into redeployment in June 2020 was found not to be direct discrimination or s.15 treatment; it followed her inability to continue in the flexible role and was agreed as a means of supporting her and retaining employment.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	Allegation (4): the claimant was not permitted to proceed to the Cramlington interview; the tribunal found this was because Ms Fannon genuinely believed the interview would worsen the claimant's mental wellbeing, and the claimant agreed it was not in her best interests.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	Allegation (5): no redeployment time limit was imposed as alleged; the initial 6-week period was never applied and the process was paused and extended, so no direct or s.15 discrimination was made out.

Legal tests applied

9 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

How we got this data

Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.

Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.