Member K Thomson Tribunal Member J Burnett Mr J A Kennedy v Represented by: Ms E Drysdale Student Advisor The Glasgow Angling Centre Limited — 2019

The claimant had worked for the respondent since 2004 and, after his disability-related adjustments, remained in the mail order department on light duties and reduced hours. The live claims at proof were discrimination arising from disability, harassment, and constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal also recorded that direct age and disability discrimination and holiday pay were no longer being pursued, and it rejected the respondent's case that the remaining claims were out of time.

On the section 15 EqA claim, the tribunal found a series of acts of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability. It held that Mr Martin treated the claimant unfavourably over annual leave, that Mr Martin dealt with the 22 February 2017 complaint publicly, that Mr Armour's grievance handling was partial and inadequate, that Mr Devlin's 28 February 2017 comments were unfavourable, that the claimant was told his statistics would be monitored, that Mr Devlin's 28 May 2017 text exchange dismissed his concerns, that the respondent failed to manage his sick absence, that he was removed from the Vitality policy because he worked part-time, and that the later request for information was not answered. The tribunal rejected the respondent's explanation that these matters were simply ordinary management or justified by performance concerns, and said that any such concerns should have been addressed through capability or occupational health procedures.

On harassment under section 26 EqA, the tribunal found that several of the same events constituted unwanted conduct related to disability, including the 28 February 2017 incident, the May 2017 targets and monitoring, the 28 May 2017 text, the absence management, the removal from the Vitality policy, the grievance process, and the failure to respond to the claimant's request for information. It found that the cumulative effect of those matters violated the claimant's dignity and created the requisite hostile or intimidating effect. The tribunal did not uphold the age alternative. It also held that the discrimination claims were in time because the conduct formed a course extending to the unanswered correspondence from the claimant's solicitors in June 2018, and in any event it would have been just and equitable to extend time.

On constructive dismissal, the tribunal held that the respondent's conduct cumulatively breached the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. It relied in particular on the removal of the claimant from the Vitality policy without notice or explanation, the prolonged lack of contact while he was on sick leave, the flawed grievance and appeal process, and the failure to answer the solicitors' correspondence asking for confirmation of employment status. The tribunal found that the final unanswered correspondence could amount to a last straw, that the resignation letter was written in response to the breach, and that the claimant did not wait an unreasonable time before resigning. The case was listed for a remedy hearing, so no award was determined in this judgment.