Ms S McAdorey v Chiltern Distribution Ltd — 2020

Ms S McAdorey was employed first by Chiltern Cold Storage Group Ltd as a Warehouse Administrator from 20 February 2017 and was TUPE transferred to Chiltern Distribution Ltd on 1 November 2018. She resigned on 16 April 2019 with an effective date of termination of 1 May 2019. She brought claims of constructive unfair dismissal, disability discrimination based on fibromyalgia, and breach of the Working Time Regulations 1998.

On the disability issue, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had a physical impairment from October 2017 and that it was long term, but it found that she had not proved a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities at the relevant time. It relied on the GP notes, fit notes, the rheumatologist report, and the PIP assessment, and it found some of the claimant's reported restrictions, particularly on mobility, were exaggerated. The tribunal therefore held that she was not disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 at all relevant times in early 2019.

The tribunal also found that the respondent did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that the claimant was disabled. The fit notes were treated as indicating reduced hours or temporary absence rather than disability, and the claimant had not complained about difficulties caused by her physical impairment or requested adjustments beyond those reflected in the fit notes. Even if disability had been established, the reasonable-adjustments claim would have failed because the only relevant practice found was occasional lifting of 20kg trays, and the adjustments contended for did not match that practice.

On constructive unfair dismissal, the tribunal rejected the allegations that the claimant had been denied a contractual pay rise or forced to move to the respondent on a basis that would found constructive dismissal. It found that the signing of a new contract in December 2018 amounted to affirmation of the employment contract. The tribunal did, however, find that the 26 March 2019 grievance hearing involved verbal aggression and that this amounted to a fundamental breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. It then found that this breach did not cause the resignation: the claimant resigned because she did not want to work under Laura Parker after Ms Parker was promoted to line manager, and the grievance-hearing conduct was not a reason for resignation even to a minor degree.

On the Working Time Regulations claim, the tribunal found no written opt-out agreement, but it did not find a breach of the 48-hour working time limit because the claimant accepted she was paid for all hours worked and no separate compensation claim arose. It also found no breach of rest-break rights because the claimant managed her own time, had responsibility for the warehouse rota, and could take breaks as appropriate. The respondent applied for costs, but the tribunal refused the application.