Members: G Coyle S Singh Mr J Gilmour v Ramsdens Financial Limited — 2021

The claimant had a qualifying disability, and the case was argued as six reasonable-adjustment complaints under ss.20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 together with constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal first dealt with limitation. It held that the complaints about individual risk assessments and immediate occupational health reports after return from long-term sick leave were out of time, that it was not just and equitable to extend time, and that it therefore had no jurisdiction to consider those two complaints.

The remaining reasonable-adjustment complaints failed on the evidence. For the branch-swap complaint, the tribunal found no established practice of allowing swaps in the way alleged and noted that a swap would require the agreement of both managers. For the taxi-payment complaint, it found the respondent had not been put on notice that the claimant was asking it to meet taxi fares, and he did not produce receipts or otherwise ask for reimbursement. For the salary-maintenance complaint, the tribunal held that the respondent applied a uniform sick-pay arrangement and that the alleged pay protection was not a relevant PCP on the facts; it distinguished G4S Cash Solutions v Powell on the basis that no existing pay-protection arrangement had been withdrawn.

The staffing-level complaint also failed. The tribunal found no relevant evidence of a PCP beyond the respondent's efforts to provide additional support in the branch. It accepted that there were no branch manager vacancies available at the material time. Overall, the tribunal rejected the disability discrimination case and declined to make any recommendation under s.124(2)(c) Equality Act 2010.

The constructive unfair dismissal claim also failed. Applying the Western Excavating line of authority, the tribunal held that there was no fundamental or repudiatory breach of contract by the respondent. It found the respondent had responded to the claimant's medical situation by agreeing a phased return, a temporary reduction to four days, extra branch support, and later discussion of a Partick Branch Assistant role. The tribunal held that the claimant's resignation was not in response to any breach by the respondent. No monetary award was made.