Mrs C White v The Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police AT A FINAL HEARING Heard: Remotely by CVP (nominally at Nottingham) — 2022

Mrs White was a long-serving emergency call handler with no useful sight who used JAWS and other accessibility arrangements to do her work. The respondent replaced the old Vision system with SAFE because Vision was reaching the end of its life and supplier support was ending. The tribunal found that accessibility was built into the procurement from the outset, that Blazie was engaged to make SAFE accessible for Mrs White, and that a substantial budget was available for that work.

The tribunal accepted that SAFE was not initially usable by Mrs White and that there were significant technical difficulties, including scripting and audio-splitting issues, with further disruption caused by Covid-19 and lockdown. It found, however, that the respondent and its managers pressed SAAB and Blazie to resolve the problems, provided temporary alternative work, protected Mrs White's pay, and kept her involved in training and updates. Applying the proportionality analysis under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010, and referring to Homer and Hardy's & Hansons v Lax, the tribunal held that replacing Vision with SAFE was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of keeping the control room system up to date and maintaining continuity of service.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal treated the case as one of constructive dismissal based on alleged breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. It found that the respondent's conduct did not amount to conduct without reasonable and proper cause that was calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence. The tribunal noted that Mrs White had begun looking for other work by late June or early July 2020, had accepted another post by early August, and submitted a leaver form on 10 October 2020; it found that later events, including the formal resignation form on 4 November 2020, did not change the position. Even if there had been a breach, the tribunal held that the contract had been affirmed by the delay in resigning, the continued working, and the extended notice given. The unfair dismissal claim therefore failed and was dismissed.