Ms G Rouse v Andron Contract Services Ltd — 2022

Ms Rouse was employed as an Area Contract Manager and suffered a heart attack in July 2019. The respondent issued an at-risk restructuring proposal in September 2019 which would replace the two Contract Manager roles with Area Supervisors. When she returned to work on 14 November 2019, the parties agreed that she should not drive for more than 4 hours a day and should not do manual labour, but the tribunal found that the work allocated to her did not reflect those limits in practice and that the consultation process was repeatedly delayed.

The complaints of direct disability discrimination, disability-related harassment and indirect disability discrimination were withdrawn. The tribunal upheld the section 15 EqA 2010 complaint of discrimination arising from disability, finding that the respondent pre-determined the restructuring outcome, did not allow her to return to her original role, recruited and retained Area Supervisors to cover her area, left her at risk for an indefinite period, and did not take adequate steps to reassure her. The tribunal also found that the respondent's stated justification, described as a full and comprehensive consultation, could not answer the claim because that was not what had happened.

The reasonable adjustments complaint succeeded only in relation to the practice of requiring Contract Managers to drive more than 4 hours a day. The tribunal found that this placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage, that the respondent knew of the disadvantage, and that reasonable steps would have included implementing the agreed four-hour limit or allocating nearer sites or sites accessible by public transport. The other alleged PCPs, including cleaners' cover, leaving employees at risk, sick pay, equipment provision, and travel by public transport, were rejected or found out of time.

On dismissal, the tribunal held that the respondent's cumulative conduct breached the implied term of trust and confidence. It found that Ms Rouse resigned on 21 February 2020 in response to that breach and had not affirmed the contract, so the unfair dismissal claim succeeded as a constructive dismissal under s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996. The wrongful dismissal claim also succeeded because notice pay had not been paid. Remedy was deferred to a one-day hearing listed for 30 January 2023.