Mr R Ross, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2025

The claimant had been employed by the respondent since 2006 as a Band 6 Cancer Clinical Trials Nurse. The tribunal accepted that she had disabling mental health issues and that her attendance had been affected by prolonged absences, but it also found that the respondent had put in place a range of support measures over time, including a Wellness Action Plan, phased returns, flexible hours, altered start and finish times, longer lunch breaks, non-patient-facing work where possible, and later Access to Work support.

The evidence showed that the employer repeatedly explored further adjustments in 2021, including a reduction to 22.5 hours a week and later a three-month trial at 15 hours a week, together with fixed working days, flexibility around breaks, remote working for some activities, and an updated Wellness Action Plan. The tribunal found that the claimant's manager, Ms Dudgeon, generally approached the issue supportively and had kept an open mind as the claimant's needs evolved.

The central incident was the meeting on 10 June 2022 after a concern arose about a long personal call taken in an open-plan office and the discussion of client matters. The tribunal found that the claimant was disadvantaged by being asked to attend an informal management meeting at short notice, and that the respondent should have given advance written confirmation of the issue to be discussed and why it was a concern. That omission was the only part of the reasonable-adjustments complaint that succeeded; the tribunal rejected the other adjustment complaints, including the companion issue and the contention that the Wellness Action Plan should have been implemented in a different way.

The tribunal dismissed the section 15 and section 26 complaints. It held that the July 2022 medical suspension and the later reimposition of suspension in November 2022 were proportionate responses to the risk concerns generated by the 10 June incident, and that the claimant had not shown the suspensions to be unfavourable treatment or harassment in the way pleaded. It also rejected the proposition that the 10 June meeting itself amounted to unwanted conduct creating a prohibited environment.

The constructive dismissal complaint also failed. The tribunal held that the claimant did not resign in response to a repudiatory breach, and that the alleged failures relied on in the resignation letter, including delay in the grievance process and the handling of occupational health and suspension issues, did not amount to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. It found that the claimant resigned before the grievance outcome was issued and before the remaining points had been finally resolved.