Claimant v Powys County Council

The tribunal found that the respondent had a potentially fair reason for dismissal (substantial breakdown in working relationship) and that the dismissal was fair under s.98(4). The claimant's behaviour and entrenched position regarding alleged conspiracy demonstrated irretrievable breakdown. Re-investigation would have been pointless.

The tribunal found protected disclosures played no part in the decision to dismiss. The decision-makers (Mrs Lovell and Mr Brinn) restricted themselves to the matters before them and were not influenced by any protected disclosures. Their reasons were genuine and made in good faith.

Although one disclosure (email of 25 January 2019 regarding spot contracts for interim care placements) was found to be a qualifying protected disclosure, the tribunal concluded that none of the alleged detriments were caused by or related to any protected disclosures, whether qualifying or not.

The tribunal found no link between the claimant's disability (back condition) and the alleged discriminatory treatment. The warning and disciplinary processes were triggered by non-disability related absences and were conducted in accordance with policy. The respondent took the disability into account throughout.

The tribunal found no unfavourable treatment arising in consequence of disability. The warning was triggered by non-disability related sickness absences. The fraud investigation concerned annual leave discrepancies unrelated to sickness. The respondent's treatment was proportionate and aimed at legitimate aims.

The tribunal found the respondent did make reasonable adjustments: permitted home working from August 2017; adjusted trigger points to exclude disability-related absences; followed occupational health recommendations. The claimant was not put at substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled persons.

The tribunal found none of the alleged conduct constituted unwanted conduct which violated dignity or created a hostile environment. The respondent's processes (warnings, investigations, communications) were reasonable and not related to disability. There was no link between disability and alleged harassment.