Mr M Wright v Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service Heard: Remotely by CVP (Nottingham) — 2021

Mr Wright, a firefighter, had twice sought flexible working, seeking 50% part-time or job-share working in order to reduce his hours. The tribunal found that the respondent genuinely considered both applications, took prompt steps to identify job-share partners, and granted the requests in principle on each occasion, but the proposed arrangements failed because the potential job-share partners withdrew, resigned, or changed their circumstances. It further found that the respondent later offered a stand-alone 0.4 FTE fire prevention role, which was a reasonable alternative even though Mr Wright did not want that role because it was not the precise arrangement he had sought.

On the s.47E ERA detriment claim, the tribunal held that none of the pleaded acts were done because of the flexible working request or any alleged ground under s.80H. It accepted the respondent's reasons were the operational needs of the fire service, ridership levels, competency maintenance, and the secondary employment and sickness absence policies. The tribunal also held that the allegations about Ms Jennings's email and Mr Pritchard's comments at the appeal hearing did not amount to detriments on the facts found.

On victimisation, the tribunal held that the grievance of 3 September 2019 was not a protected act within s.27 Equality Act 2010. Although the grievance used words such as 'harassed' and 'victimised', the tribunal found those words were used in their ordinary sense to express unfairness and dissatisfaction, not to allege a contravention of the Equality Act or to invoke a protected characteristic. It also found there was no basis to conclude that the relevant decision-makers believed Mr Wright had done, or might do, a protected act.

The unfair dismissal claim also failed. Applying the authorities on constructive dismissal, trust and confidence, and the last straw doctrine, the tribunal found no repudiatory breach by the respondent. It concluded that Mr Pritchard's grievance appeal outcome was a decision open to the respondent on the evidence, that the restriction on secondary employment during sickness absence and the ending of the flexible working process were based on relevant considerations, and that the resignation on 28 October 2019 was not in response to a fundamental breach of contract. The notice-pay breach of contract claim was withdrawn and dismissed upon withdrawal.