Ms Caroline Simms v Royal College of Psychiatrists — 2022

Ms Caroline Simms brought unfair dismissal and discrimination complaints against The Royal College of Psychiatrists. At a preliminary hearing on 28 January 2022, the age discrimination, disability discrimination and disability-related harassment complaints were withdrawn and recorded as dismissed on withdrawal. The final merits hearing therefore concerned direct race discrimination, victimisation and unfair dismissal.

The tribunal found that CALC was genuinely restructured in late 2019 and early 2020 for reasons of efficiency and budget-neutral reorganisation. It accepted that all three Events Co-ordinator posts were deleted and replaced with more junior Events Administrator roles with no event-management element, alongside new manager posts. The claimant was warned that she was at risk, consulted individually and in a group, told she could be slotted into an Administrator role or apply for the new manager posts, and chose not to apply. Applying s.98(1) and s.98(2)(c) ERA 1996, s.139 ERA 1996, Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd, Morgan v Welsh Rugby Union, Crown v British Coal Corporation ex parte Price (No. 3) and Thomas & Betts Manufacturing Company v Harding, the tribunal held that redundancy was the reason for dismissal and that the process was fair.

On the discrimination claims, the tribunal rejected the allegation that the claimant was treated less favourably because of race in relation to the June to September 2019 flexible working request, the August 2019 reallocation of duties, the December 2019 changes to her role, the refusal to place her on furlough, or earlier background matters. It found that the flexible working request was considered at a busy period and was granted in part as a reasonable adjustment on health grounds, that comparable ad hoc home-working arrangements were used for Ms Walter and Ms Braithwaite, and that the later duty changes were administrative responses to short-term staffing needs and the restructuring. The tribunal also found no basis to infer victimisation: the 2017 parental leave dispute was resolved by compromise, the 2019 request was handled for non-retaliatory reasons, and the restructure was not driven by the protected acts. No monetary award was made because all live claims were dismissed.