Ms P Daley (legal representative) For the v Respondent — 2024

The claimant was employed as Yard Manager and resigned with immediate effect on 16 June 2022 after a return-to-work meeting and related correspondence about training, medical information, and the respondent's concerns about accident-reporting paperwork connected to an alleged 13 October 2021 incident. The tribunal rejected the claimant's account that the accident had been reported at the time, found that it was not reported to the respondent until March/April 2022 in the context of a DWP Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit claim, and found that Tina Rodell falsified the accident report forms. The tribunal also found that the respondent knew by early May 2022 that the claimant had a significant spinal impairment and was disabled within the Equality Act 2010.

On the constructive dismissal claim, the tribunal held that reallocating the 13 June 2022 PAT course because the claimant was signed off sick, considering redeployment and training, asking for medical information before any Occupational Health referral, and questioning him on 16 June about the accident paperwork were all legitimate management steps and not breaches of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. It found that the claimant was aware several matters were to be discussed, that the lack of express advance warning about possible misconduct questions was a minor departure from the Acas guidance justified by the risk of collusion, and that the claimant resigned in the face of possible disciplinary action rather than in response to a repudiatory breach.

On the section 15 claim, the tribunal identified the relevant 'something arising' as the claimant's sickness absence from 3 December 2021 to 15 June 2022. It held that the request for medical evidence before an Occupational Health referral was not unfavourable treatment and was in line with the handbook and the Code of Practice; alternatively, it would have been proportionate to the legitimate aim of understanding the claimant's capability and ensuring a safe return to work. The PAT course reallocation was also found not to be unfavourable because the claimant was signed off unfit for work.

On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal held that the pleaded PCP requiring the claimant to return only as Yard Manager was not established, and that handbook clause 7.7 was a PCP but did not place disabled people at a substantial disadvantage compared with non-disabled people. It therefore found that no duty to make reasonable adjustments arose on the pleaded case and dismissed the claim in full.