Claimant v Mears Limited

Claimant's grievance of November 2024 was not a qualifying disclosure because she did not have a reasonable belief that the disclosure was in the public interest. The grievance related solely to her own circumstances and she gave no evidence of believing it was in the public interest. She accepted in cross-examination it was a complaint solely about her circumstances.

Claimant alleged she was excluded from the Christmas night out in December 2024. The tribunal found no individual invitations were sent to any employee, arrangements were discussed in the office with all staff including the claimant, and there was no evidence the claimant was excluded or that any treatment was because of her disabilities.

The tribunal found the 'something' arising from disability relied upon by the claimant (effects on memory and communication) had no influence on how the respondent organised the Christmas night out. There was no evidence of unfavourable treatment because of something arising from her disability.

Two PCPs were alleged. First, use of standard headset: tribunal found this did not place claimant at substantial disadvantage as a disabled person as difficulties were not linked to her disabilities. Second, working in open plan office: duty was engaged but respondent complied by allowing use of break-out room initially and then implementing adjustments recommended in OH report of December 2024. Delay in adjustments was because claimant refused OH referral until November 2024.

Three matters alleged: exclusion from Christmas night out (tribunal found claimant was not excluded); impersonation (insufficient evidence of what occurred or who was involved); and meeting of 23 January 2025 (tribunal found no verbal abuse, bullying or goading occurred, and the meeting did not have prohibited purpose or effect under s26 Equality Act).

Claimant relied on two protected acts (grievance of 5 November 2024 and email of 22 January 2025). Two alleged detriments: damage to car on 20 January (no evidence as to who caused damage or any link to protected acts); and meeting of 23 January (tribunal found managers entitled to meet with claimant, nothing objectionable was said, and no detriment occurred).

Tribunal found no discrimination had occurred so there was no discrimination to influence any repudiatory breach. Further, there was no repudiatory breach of trust and confidence: respondent had no obligation to seek OH advice at start of employment, claimant refused OH referral until November 2024, and adjustments were implemented or in progress when claimant resigned. The 'last straw' meeting of 23 January did not contribute to any breach.