Claimant v Regent Office Care Limited t/a Samsic UK & JPC by Samsic

The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed for Some Other Substantial Reason (breakdown in trust/confidence) but the dismissal was both substantively and procedurally unfair. The respondent had decided from February 2021 to dismiss the claimant and made no genuine attempt to facilitate his return to work. The dismissal in July 2021 followed no proper procedure and the reasons given for dismissal were not supported by evidence.

The tribunal found the claimant had made a protected disclosure but this was only a small element of what had occurred. The sole or principal reason for dismissal was not the protected disclosure, but the perceived breakdown in trust and confidence arising from multiple grievances and other events. Therefore the claim for automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996 did not succeed.

The tribunal found victimisation succeeded in respect of: (1) the decision on 25 February 2021 to proceed with SOSR dismissal; (2) holding a return to work interview on 26 April 2021 where statements were read to the claimant; and (3) the dismissal on 30 July 2021. All three acts were materially influenced by the claimant having raised grievances that were protected acts. Other victimisation claims failed where the claimant did not prove the detriment or that it was caused by protected acts.

The tribunal found failures to make reasonable adjustments succeeded in respect of: (1) dealing with suspensions too slowly and failing to inform the claimant of outcomes in reasonable time; (2) failure to allow a companion at mediation meetings on 3 and 4 March 2021; and (3) failure to allow a companion at the head office meeting on 26 April 2021. The respondent knew or should have known the claimant was disabled and these practices placed him at substantial disadvantage. Other reasonable adjustment claims failed.

All direct disability discrimination claims failed. The tribunal found no evidence that the claimant was treated less favourably than an appropriate comparator without disability. The treatment complained of was linked to the grievances the claimant raised and the breakdown in relationships, not to his disability. The tribunal found a hypothetical comparator in similar circumstances without disability would have been treated the same way.

All harassment claims failed. While the tribunal found some of the conduct complained of was unwanted and could create an intimidating or hostile environment, in each case the tribunal concluded the conduct did not relate to the claimant's protected characteristic of disability. The conduct related to the grievances and breakdown in relationships, with disability only as background.

All whistleblowing detriment claims failed. The tribunal found some alleged protected disclosures were not proven to have occurred. Where detriments were proven, the tribunal found no evidence that the protected disclosure was a material factor in the detrimental treatment. The disclosures were only a small part of wider events and grievances.

The breach of contract claim regarding sick pay failed because the claimant was only entitled to SSP under his contract. There was no contractual entitlement to company sick pay, which was paid at management discretion. The tribunal also found the claims for holiday pay failed as the claimant did not provide evidence to prove what was accrued and owed.

The claim for holiday pay as unlawful deductions failed because the claimant did not provide evidence to prove what holiday pay had accrued or what he was paid on termination. Without a final pay statement or breakdown of annual leave taken, the tribunal could not find the claimant was owed any sums.

The holiday pay claim under Working Time Regulations failed for the same reason as the unlawful deductions claim. The claimant did not prove what annual leave he had accrued or that he was underpaid on termination. No breakdown of holiday entitlement or payments was provided.