Mrs K Morjaria v Barclays Execution Centre Limited — 2024

The tribunal held that the claimant was not disabled by reason of IBS on the evidence before it, and that her depression and anxiety became a disability only from October 2019. It accepted that the claimant's March and May 2019 grievance communications were about Mr Nikolov and a change of line manager, but not about discrimination, and that they were not qualifying disclosures because they were personal complaints rather than disclosures made in the public interest.

The first grievance and appeal were not found to have been delayed unnecessarily. The tribunal held that the policy timescales were guidance rather than fixed limits and that the modest additional time taken was explained by the investigation work and the Easter period. It also held that the second grievance dated 11 December 2019 was a protected act and a qualifying disclosure because it expressly raised disability discrimination and wider workplace safety concerns, but that the time taken to investigate and appeal it was explained by the complexity of the issues, the volume of documents and the onset of Covid-19.

On the claimant's return to work in October 2019, the tribunal found that the respondent created a bespoke phased-return arrangement with a substantially reduced workload, no fixed targets and regular contact with management and HR. It found that the claimant did not complain contemporaneously that the workload was too heavy or that the targets were inappropriate, and that the arrangements were designed to facilitate her return rather than to place her at a disadvantage. On that basis, the claims for discrimination arising from disability, reasonable adjustments and harassment in relation to workload, targets and working arrangements failed.

The tribunal also rejected the claims about pay, salary and bonus. It found there was no salary reduction on 14 October 2019 or 6 December 2019, that the claimant's pay was not reduced to zero on 5 February 2020 because the respondent continued to pay her 65% while the BIPS process was ongoing, and that the bonus of £14,900 was calculated by reference to her 2019 assessment and absence. It also found that the decision not to increase her base salary was based on market data and was unrelated to her sickness absence.

When Occupational Health advised in late December 2019 that the claimant was not fit for work, the tribunal found that Ms Arthur told her to remain off sick in line with that advice and that this was not a suspension or an overrule of a return-to-work decision. It held that the claimant's 11 December 2019 grievance was not a causal factor because Ms Arthur was unaware of it when she made the decision, and that the BIPS refusals were decisions made by UNUM, not by the respondent. The claimant's third grievance was accepted as a protected act, but the tribunal found no unlawful detriment linked to it.

The tribunal concluded that there had been no repudiatory breach of contract and no constructive dismissal. It held that the grievance processes, although lengthy, were handled reasonably and that the respondent had continued to support the claimant, including by paying her more than contractual entitlement for much of 2020. The ordinary unfair dismissal claim and the automatic unfair dismissal claims under sections 103A and 104(1) ERA 1996 were therefore dismissed, and no remedy was awarded.