IN PERSON FOR THE v Respondent — 2025

At the hearing the tribunal rejected a late allegation that the respondent and its solicitors had tampered with bundle documents. It found no evidence of collusion or removal of records, and accepted the respondent's explanation that the missing 17 February 2023 entry reflected an error in its records rather than deliberate alteration.

The constructive unfair dismissal complaint failed because the tribunal found no fundamental breach of contract. The respondent had reduced the claimant's hours from 40 to 32 and then 20 at her request, implemented a phased return after long-term sickness, adjusted breaks and call-time expectations, and dealt with her grievance and appeal in a reasoned manner. The resignation on 14 September 2023 was therefore not a dismissal.

The discrimination arising from disability complaint under section 15 EqA 2010 also failed. The alleged unfavourable treatment was non-payment of a productivity bonus when the claimant did not meet the scheme's metrics, but the tribunal found that hospital appointments were excluded from attendance calculations and longer call times were adjusted for her. It held that any loss of bonus was due to attendance and performance criteria, not because of something arising in consequence of disability.

The reasonable adjustments complaint failed because several alleged PCPs were found not to exist or not to be applied as alleged, including requirements to work full-time, work six hours before a break, ignore hospital appointments, or return immediately to contracted hours after sickness. Of the PCPs actually operating, the attendance trigger, no-recording practice, and bonus scheme did not place the claimant at a substantial disadvantage because the respondent had flexed its policies, allowed support-worker accompaniment, and adjusted the bonus metrics.

All 10 harassment allegations by reason of disability were dismissed. The tribunal held that the questions about the hospital appointment, follow-up correspondence after the postponed disciplinary meeting, the Zoom privacy incident, the disciplinary process on 4 April 2023, the return-to-work and wellbeing meeting arrangements, and the 17 May 2023 reference to a non-existent 11 May meeting were either explained by the evidence, factually inaccurate, or below the harassment threshold. The victimisation complaint also failed: although the 13 April 2023 informal complaint was treated as a protected act, the claimant was not shown to have suffered a detriment because of it.