Claimant v SmartFrame Technologies Ltd

The tribunal found no fundamental breach of contract. While the claimant was subjected to Ms Duggan's emotional expression of frustration on 8 January 2024, this did not go to the root of the employment relationship and did not amount to a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.

The written contract only entitled the claimant to statutory sick pay. The sick pay policy was not incorporated into the contract as it was not sufficiently clear and precise, and there was no custom and practice. Therefore, no breach occurred when full sick pay was withdrawn.

As no sum was contractually due (the sick pay policy was not incorporated), the claim for unlawful deduction of wages under section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996 failed.

The tribunal did not find direct disability discrimination. The respondent's actions were not because of the claimant's ADHD diagnosis. The tribunal found the respondent acted for other operational or financial reasons unconnected to disability.

The tribunal found unfavourable treatment (removing full sick pay, denying training budget access, and Ms Duggan's emotional outburst on 8 January), but there was no causal link between the things arising from disability (e.g. time blindness, need for breaks, context switching difficulties) and the unfavourable treatment. The respondent's decisions were motivated by financial considerations and other factors, not the claimant's disability-related difficulties.

The tribunal found the respondent had implemented reasonable adjustments including flexible working, regular breaks, remote working, and supporting Access to Work. The PCPs (reactive environment, frequent interruptions, rapid priority changes, multitasking) were inherent to the start-up nature of the business and stated as essential criteria in the job specification. It was not possible to avoid these disadvantages without fundamentally changing the nature of the role.

The tribunal did not find harassment related to disability. The conduct complained of, while at times poorly managed, did not have the purpose or effect of violating the claimant's dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment in relation to his disability.

The tribunal found that most alleged detriments either did not occur, occurred before any protected act, or did not amount to detriments. The respondent's responses to the claimant's complaints were measured and professional, and simply disagreeing with the claimant's characterisation of events or requesting details for a grievance did not constitute victimisation. The claimant was in a 'protective bubble' but this did not require the respondent to respond in the way he wished.