Mr Neil Colbourne v Johnsons Textile Services Limited — 2025

Mr Neil Colbourne was employed by Johnsons Textile Services Limited as a routeman from 2 June 2015. He went off sick on 9 September 2022 after reporting back pain and pins and needles, was diagnosed with cervical spondylosis by a consultant in October 2022, and returned to work in January 2023 after an occupational health report said he was fit for work with a phased return and temporary adjustments. The tribunal heard evidence about meetings on 19, 23 and 24 January 2023, an email on 23 February 2023 offering a one-week period working with a relief driver from March 2023, a grievance process, and the Claimant's resignation on 21 March 2023.

The tribunal rejected the Claimant's case that he was disabled at the material time. It found parts of his evidence unreliable and considered that his descriptions of ongoing symptoms were inconsistent with the medical evidence and with his later return to work. Applying the statutory definition in section 6 EqA 2010 and the guidance and authorities it cited, including Goodwin v Patent Office, J v DLA Piper UK Llp and Herry v Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council, the tribunal held that his difficulties were not shown to be substantial and that the medical evidence suggested they had resolved before they could be long-term. As a result, both the reasonable adjustments claim and the section 15 EqA claim were dismissed.

The section 100(1)(d) ERA 1996 claim was also dismissed. The tribunal found that the Claimant's letter referring to unsafe working conditions and refusing to return did not amount to a reasonable belief that he was exposed to serious and imminent danger. It noted that the Respondent had carried out a risk assessment and had offered assistance on return for a week so that his progress could be monitored. The tribunal relied on Rodgers v Leeds Laser Cutting Ltd and concluded that there was no serious or imminent danger on the facts found.

The ordinary constructive dismissal claim failed because the tribunal did not find a repudiatory breach of contract. It considered the complaints relied on in the list of issues and held that the Respondent was entitled to say a two-month phased return and a permanently double-manned route could not be accommodated, given the nature of the work and the number of available drivers. It found that the grievance was dealt with seriously, that the start-time adjustment and the request to sign the return-to-work record did not amount to a fundamental breach, and that the Claimant was not told to leave work on 24 January 2023. The separate section 44 detriment claim was withdrawn at the hearing.