Case 8000119/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Member W Canning Tribunal Member R Martin GM (Anonymity Order granted) v Fife Council — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000119/2023
- Decision date
- 21 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Young Tribunal
- Panel members
- W Canning, R Martin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Member W Canning Tribunal Member R Martin GM (Anonymity Order granted)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent conceded that the claimant was disabled under s.6 Equality Act 2010 by reason of mental fragility. The claimant had been absent from March 2022, applied for ill-health retirement after occupational health advice indicated he remained unfit, and later sought to return after that application and review were refused. The Tribunal accepted that further occupational health assessment was sought because of the change in position and the claimant's care role, and found no unfavourable treatment in the occupational health referrals, handling of the GP position, contact with managers, or grievance steps.
For reasonable adjustments, the Tribunal accepted a PCP requiring 12-hour shifts at Keir Hardie and found that it put the claimant at a substantial disadvantage, but found the respondent did not know and could not reasonably have known that the shift pattern was likely to cause that disadvantage. It did not accept that there was a PCP requiring work at Blairoak. In any event, it found that offering Blairoak, where 7/8-hour shifts could be worked, was a reasonable adjustment; altering Keir Hardie's rota would have caused practical, staffing and cost difficulties.
The section 15 claim was dismissed because the Tribunal found no unfavourable treatment in the alleged matters. It considered the respondent had taken active steps on the October 2022 grievance before the claimant withdrew it, and that the January 2023 grievance was followed shortly by without-prejudice discussions and resignation.
The constructive dismissal claim was dismissed because the Tribunal found no repudiatory breach of contract or breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. It found the claimant's reasons for resignation included communication issues, occupational health referrals, safety concerns, the refusal to provide shorter shifts at Keir Hardie, the move to Blairoak, and alleged policy breaches, but none individually or cumulatively amounted to a breach.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Claim was framed as unfair constructive dismissal; the Tribunal found no repudiatory breach or breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 Equality Act 2010 discrimination arising from disability claim dismissed; the Tribunal found no unfavourable treatment in the alleged matters. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Sections 20-21 Equality Act 2010 reasonable adjustments claim dismissed; the Tribunal found no duty arose on the 12-hour shift PCP and, in any event, the Blairoak transfer was a reasonable adjustment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.20(3) Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.212(1) Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 8 Part 3 paragraph 20 Equality Act 2010
- EHRC Code of Practice on Employment (2011)
- Smith v Churchill's Stairlifts plc 2006 ICR 524
- Garrett v Lidl Limited EAT0541/08
- Pnaiser v NHS England [2016] IRLR 170
- Robinson v Department of Work and Pensions [2020] IRLR 884
- s.95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp [1978] ICR 221
- Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA [1997] IRLR 462
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.