Automated Summary
Key Facts
The claimant, Ms. K Walker, was employed by Way Ahead Support Services Limited from 2008 to 2015. She resigned in July 2015 and filed claims for constructive unfair dismissal, disability discrimination (failure to make reasonable adjustments and indirect discrimination), and breach of contract/unauthorised deduction from wages. The Employment Tribunal dismissed all claims, finding the claimant failed to prove the employer conducted itself as alleged. Key findings included the employer's adherence to disciplinary and grievance procedures, lack of evidence for repudiatory breach of trust, and the claimant's inability to demonstrate substantial disadvantage under disability discrimination. The tribunal noted her inconsistent evidence, failure to meet procedural requirements, and that the respondent's actions were reasonable and within policy.
Transaction Type
TUPE transfer of employment from Netherfield to Way Ahead Support Services Limited in February 2014.
Issues
- The claimant alleged the respondent failed to pay contractual sick pay during her absence, relying on implied terms of full salary during sick leave. The tribunal assessed whether the employer's sick pay scheme (limiting payments to four weeks annually) was unilaterally altered, and if the deduction was unauthorized under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
- The tribunal considered whether the respondent's conduct (including alleged repudiatory breaches of trust, failure to address grievances, and procedural delays) was sufficiently serious to entitle the claimant to resign. Key sub-issues included: (1) Whether the employer's actions were without reasonable cause and likely to destroy trust/confidence; (2) If the claimant left in response to the conduct; (3) The reason for dismissal and its fairness under the Employment Rights Act 1996; and (4) Whether the claimant contributed to the dismissal by delaying resolution.
- The tribunal evaluated if the respondent's provisions, criteria, or practices (PCPs)—such as requiring attendance at investigatory meetings without informing the claimant of allegations, using non-independent chairs, or holding meetings at the workplace—disproportionately disadvantaged the claimant (a disabled employee with mental health issues). The claimant argued these practices exacerbated her condition, while the respondent claimed they were proportionate to address misconduct.
Holdings
- The claim of a failure to make reasonable adjustments fails and is dismissed.
- The claimant's claim of breach of contract/unauthorised deduction from wages (occupational sick pay) fails and is dismissed.
- The complaint of disability discrimination (indirect discrimination) fails and is dismissed.
- The complaint of disability discrimination (failure to make reasonable adjustments) fails and is dismissed.
- The claim of indirect discrimination in relation to disability fails and is dismissed.
- The claimant's claim of constructive unfair dismissal fails and is dismissed.
- The claimant's claim of unauthorised deduction from wages/breach of contract in respect of payment of contractual sick pay is dismissed.
Remedies
- The complaint of disability discrimination (failure to make reasonable adjustments) fails and is dismissed.
- The claimant's claim of breach of contract/unauthorised deduction from wages (occupational sick pay) fails and is dismissed.
- The claimant's claim of constructive unfair dismissal fails and is dismissed.
- The complaint of disability discrimination (indirect discrimination) fails and is dismissed.
Legal Principles
- The tribunal applies the balance of probabilities standard to determine whether the claimant's allegations of constructive dismissal and disability discrimination meet the legal threshold.
- The duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 requires employers to identify and mitigate substantial disadvantages faced by disabled employees.
- The claimant bears the burden of proof in constructive dismissal claims under Section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, requiring them to demonstrate the employer's conduct amounted to a fundamental breach of contract.
Precedent Name
- Woods v WM Car Services (Peterborough) Ltd
- Environment Agency v Rowan
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- London Borough of Waltham Forest v Omilaju
- Niblett v Nationwide Building Society
Key Disputed Contract Clauses
- The claimant contested the 2013 contract's sick pay clause, which capped occupational sick pay at four weeks per 12 months. She argued prior practices (2008, 2011) implied full salary during sick leave, but the tribunal found no contractual term existed beyond the 2013 policy.
- The respondent altered the claimant's job title and description in November 2013, increasing her hours and removing the 'senior' designation. The claimant alleged this was coerced, but the tribunal concluded she consented to the changes.
- The claimant claimed unreasonable delay in addressing her April 2014 grievance against her manager. The tribunal found the delay was not the respondent's fault, as the claimant initially requested the grievance be deferred until after disciplinary proceedings.
- The claimant argued the respondent's disciplinary procedures (e.g., lack of independent chairs, holding meetings at the workplace) violated her rights under disability discrimination laws. The tribunal found these procedures were applied lawfully and not discriminatory.
Cited Statute
- Employment Rights Act 1996
- Equality Act 2010
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994
Judge Name
- Mr H Parvin
- Employment Judge Woffenden
- Mr T Liburd
Passage Text
- 1 The claimant's claim of constructive unfair dismissal fails and is dismissed.
- 2 The complaint of disability discrimination (failure to make reasonable adjustments) fails and is dismissed.
- 3 The complaint of disability discrimination (indirect discrimination) fails and is dismissed.
Damages / Relief Type
Claimant's claims of constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination were dismissed with no damages awarded.