Claimant v The Chief Constable of Lancashire Constabulary

Complaint regarding Written Improvement Notice issued 10 December 2021 was presented outside the applicable time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time. Tribunal found the Claimant had Police Federation representation from the UAP process, had identified potential discrimination in May 2022, and faced no impediment to bringing the claim in time. Delay of approximately 5 months prejudiced the Respondent as witness recollection was adversely affected. Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Complaint regarding being told on 1 February 2023 to amend Freda or be returned to full hours with unauthorised absence consequences was presented outside the applicable time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time. Despite the Tribunal finding this was unfavourable treatment and not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, the claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to the same reasons as above: delay, Claimant's access to representation, and adverse impact on evidence cogency.

Complaint regarding Attendance Support Plan issued April 2022 failed. Tribunal found issuing the ASP was not unfavourable treatment in the context of a protective and supportive framework designed to assist the Claimant's return to work, including a 20% uplift to tolerated absence for disability-related absence. The ASP set out expectations but also workplace support and adjustments, and was not unfavourable treatment.

Complaint regarding being asked to amend Freda between April 2022 and February 2023 failed. Tribunal found the Claimant was never actually required to amend his Freda during this period, was not paid less, and continued to receive full pay while working reduced hours. Chief Inspector Hannan's November/December 2022 requests to consider a medical Freda were reasonable given the prolonged period (17 months) of full pay for reduced hours/duties. No unfavourable treatment occurred until the February 2023 meeting, which was dealt with separately.

Complaint regarding being informed on 22 May 2023 that he could not move to FCMU without completing shifts at Response between 27 May and 15 June 2023 failed. Tribunal found returning to his substantive contractual role (Response at West Division) while waiting for the new FCMU unit to become operational on 12 June was not unfavourable treatment. The reason was operational need, not the Claimant's sickness absence or inability to work full-time. The Claimant worked only 4.5 shifts during this period and the 'something arising' was not a material influence on the decision.

Complaint regarding failure to adjust UAP process and delay/not apply it failed. While the Respondent conceded the UAP process was a PCP causing substantial disadvantage, the Tribunal found the pleaded adjustments (not initiating UAP at all or delaying it once disability was known) were not reasonable. The Claimant's intermittent absence levels, including non-disability absence, legitimately triggered the policy. The Respondent failed to consider adjusting attendance requirements to account for disability-related absence, but the specific pleaded adjustments were not reasonable given the significant absence levels and legitimate concerns.

Complaint regarding failure to adjust requirement to work 40 hours/week failed. Respondent conceded this was a PCP causing substantial disadvantage at times. However, Tribunal found the Respondent did make adjustments: the Claimant was allowed reduced hours from July 2021, placed on recuperative duties, removed from front-line duties throughout the relevant period, had duties adjusted in line with FMA and GP advice, and was never actually required to work full-time when unable to do so. The pleaded adjustments (remove from front-line duties, homeworking, reduced hours without Freda amendment, split shifts) were either already in place or not shown to be reasonable. The Claimant was not in fact subjected to the substantial disadvantage during the relevant period.

Complaint regarding requirement to attend full-time FCMU training course and complete shifts before moving to FCMU failed. Respondent accepted requirement to attend full-time course was a PCP. However, Tribunal found the Claimant successfully completed the full-time training with some time off allowed for childcare, and was not shown to have suffered substantial disadvantage during the training or the 4.5 shifts worked at West Division before moving to FCMU. The pleaded adjustments (immediate move to FCMU after training, early release from West Division) were not reasonable as the new unit was not operational until 12 June 2023 and there was no alternative role available for the short interim period. Creating a non-existent role for such a short time was not a reasonable adjustment.