In person For the v Respondent — 2019

The claimant, Mrs N Edwards, was employed by Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health Trust from 11 August 2008 to 5 January 2018 as a Band 4 Mental Health Act Officer. After a disciplinary investigation into allegations described by the tribunal as essentially bullying, Mr Theo Bello found her guilty of misconduct on 21 June 2017, imposed a final written warning, and decided that she should be redeployed because of the breakdown of working relationships within the team. The redeployment decision was accompanied by an offer of assistance to identify alternative roles over 12 weeks, but the claimant did not engage with that process.

The tribunal reviewed the underlying allegations and the grievance material that had been investigated before Mr Bello. It recorded that allegations 2, 3 and 4 against the claimant were upheld, including findings that she had acted in a way that left colleagues feeling threatened and fearful, while allegation 1 was not upheld. The judge accepted that there was a substantial body of evidence before the employer, that the workplace relationships had broken down, and that the respondent was entitled to conclude that the claimant was more responsible than others for the dysfunction.

The claimant appealed both the redeployment decision and the eventual dismissal. Mr Milner upheld the redeployment decision on 19 October 2017, and Mr Griffiths upheld the dismissal on 18 June 2018. The tribunal accepted the respondent’s explanation for the delay in the appeal process, namely the need to find managers who had not previously been involved with the claimant. It also relied on occupational health evidence from 24 July 2017 that said the claimant’s continued absence was a management rather than medical issue and that she was fit for work.

Applying section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, including section 98(4), and the authorities in Sainsburys Supermarkets v Hitt and Iceland Frozen Food v Jones, the tribunal held that the respondent had acted reasonably. It found that the instruction to redeploy was not one that no reasonable employer would have made, that it was contractually permitted, and that once the claimant refused to engage with redeployment the dismissal was reasonable and, in the tribunal’s words, inevitable. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed and no financial award was made.