In person For the v Respondent — 2024

The claimant worked for the respondent from 18 June 2008 and, after a TUPE transfer on 1 June 2017, resigned on 15 August 2023. The tribunal accepted that the respondent conceded disability by virtue of diabetes, but it did not find that the claimant was disabled by mental health issues on the evidence before it. It also found that the claimant's role required regular face-to-face work with young people and that the respondent had previously allowed home-working arrangements as an adjustment.

On constructive unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that the respondent was not in fundamental breach of contract and that the claimant resigned for her own reasons rather than in response to a breach. It found that the respondent was entitled to manage attendance and performance, including the claimant's face-to-face caseload and absence record. The Occupational Health recommendation for a phased return was implemented, a Mental Health Wellbeing Risk Assessment was completed, and the tribunal found that the claimant was supported through supervision and review meetings.

The tribunal rejected the factual basis for the principal complaints relied on by the claimant, including the allegation that she had been bullied at the 3 April 2023 meeting, pressured to sign the PIP, or wrongly refused home working. It found that the PIP was intended to be supportive, that the claimant had not made a flexible working request, and that some of the reasons given for not attending the office were unrelated to disability. The Peter Fraser complaint from 2017 was treated as separate and distinct from the resignation and was not capable of supporting the constructive dismissal claim.

On the Equality Act claims, the tribunal accepted the respondent's submission that events before 14 March 2023 were on the face of it out of time, although it considered the May 2022 return-to-work events capable of forming part of a continuing course of conduct. It nevertheless dismissed the s.13 and s.15 claims because the alleged treatment either did not occur or was not accepted in the way advanced by the claimant, and because the tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant had identified a relevant 'something' arising in consequence of disability for s.15. The reasonable adjustments claim also failed because the matters pleaded in the list of issues were found to be claimant-specific rather than PCPs, and the tribunal found no failure to take the steps alleged. All claims were dismissed.