Mr C Fernandes v St James Court Hotel Ltd — 2020

Mr C Fernandes worked for St James Court Hotel Ltd as Food and Beverage Supervisor from 6 July 2018 until he resigned on 14 August 2020. He brought unfair dismissal and disability discrimination complaints, the latter clarified as a failure to make reasonable adjustments claim. By the time of the hearing the parties agreed that he was disabled by anxiety and depression from 6 March 2020 onwards, but the hearing remained a liability-only case. The tribunal accepted that the respondents had at least constructive knowledge of that disability from that date.

On the dismissal claim, the tribunal examined a series of incidents, including a sharp exchange with Mr Singh in summer 2018, a letter of concern sent by Mr Kapur on 4 September 2019, remarks attributed to Ms Pomeranceva, some understaffing, the handling of a grievance, and the refusal to transfer the claimant to Reception. It rejected most of the claimant's allegations and treated the matters it did accept as minor. Applying the implied duty of trust and confidence, and considering the grievance-related authorities it cited, the tribunal held that none of the matters taken together amounted to a repudiatory breach. It also held that Mr Sharma's refusal to move the claimant to Reception was a permissible decision, and that the grievance process had been provided in good faith. The unfair dismissal claim therefore failed, and the tribunal did not need to decide the remaining dismissal questions.

On the reasonable adjustments claim, the tribunal treated the case as turning on two proposed PCPs: a requirement to work with managers said to have contributed to the claimant's mental health condition, and a requirement to remain in his existing role. It found that the claimant believed Mr Kapur and Ms Pomeranceva had contributed to his anxiety, but it held that there was no continuing requirement to work with Ms Pomeranceva because Mr Sharma had proposed a new reporting line outside IRD, and no requirement to stay in the same role because the decision was to place him in a different one. As to the alleged requirement to work under Mr Kapur within Food and Beverage, the tribunal accepted that this could place the claimant at a substantial disadvantage, but held that the respondents made out the schedule 8 paragraph 20 knowledge defence at the time of Mr Sharma's decision on the grievance. It also held, in any event, that a transfer to Reception was not a step it would have been reasonable to require, because there was no vacancy and the claimant lacked relevant reception experience. The reasonable adjustments claim was dismissed, and the proceedings as a whole were dismissed.