In person For the v Respondent — 2023

Mrs Aime Armstrong was employed as Human Resources Manager from 29 November 2010 until her summary dismissal for gross misconduct on 14 June 2019. Applying s.98 ERA 1996 and the Burchell approach, the tribunal held that the investigation led by Mr Johnson was reasonable, that Mr Hammons had reasonable grounds to believe the conduct allegations, and that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses. The tribunal therefore rejected the ordinary unfair dismissal claim.

On the whistleblowing claim, the claimant relied on eight alleged disclosures. The tribunal held that the first, second, third and fifth alleged disclosures did not amount to qualifying disclosures under s.43B ERA 1996 because they did not disclose information tending to show a breach of a legal obligation, or were personal complaints about pay rather than matters in the public interest. The allegation about a bullying culture was withdrawn during the hearing, and the alleged disclosure to Ernst and Young was made after dismissal, so it could not have caused the dismissal. The automatic unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.

On disability, the tribunal accepted that the claimant was disabled by cyclothymia and later bipolar disorder, and found that the respondents had actual or constructive knowledge by May 2018. It still rejected the reasonable adjustments claim under s.20 EqA 2010. The suspension PCP was accepted as a practice, but the tribunal found that lifting the suspension would have created operational difficulty given the allegations and the claimant's HR role. The interview PCP was also rejected: the adjustment claim was out of time by about six weeks, time was not extended, and the proposed written-question process was not found to be a reasonable adjustment.

The tribunal also dismissed the sex victimisation claim and the equal pay claim. On victimisation, it found that the dismissal was not because of the claimant's equal pay complaint or other protected acts. On equal pay, the tribunal accepted the respondent's job evaluation evidence and held that the claimant's role and Greg McDonald's role had been given different values under the approved scheme, with no basis for suspecting sex discrimination or unreliability. No monetary award was made because all claims failed.