Annette Hall v Amazon UK Services Limited — 2025

The claimant resigned after grievances connected with a formal health review process were not upheld. She relied on the absence of an informal one-to-one meeting before the formal health review, the treatment of work-related injury absence under the respondent's health review policy, being required to attend the formal health review, alleged discrepancies in meeting notes, and the rejection of grievance appeals.

The Tribunal found that the applicable pilot health review process did not require an informal health review before a formal health review. It found that the claimant's absence following a workplace injury could be considered under the health review process, although the fact that the injury occurred at work was relevant to any further action. The Tribunal accepted that the respondent should have done more to bring the terms of the pilot to the claimant's attention, and that the claimant's confusion was understandable, but found that no sanction was imposed and no further action was taken after the formal health review.

The Tribunal found the formal health review notes were broadly accurate and that any inaccuracies were trivial and immaterial. It found the grievance and appeal decisions followed a comprehensive process and were generally rational and reasonable, with one point about the explanation of the pilot corrected on appeal. It concluded that the claimant had not been subject to a fundamental breach of contract and therefore was not dismissed. It added that, if there had been a breach, the further delay after the final grievance appeal outcome would have amounted to affirmation of the contract.