Claimant v Clarity Bristol Ltd T/a Bluebird Care

The tribunal found that none of the acts relied upon, either individually or cumulatively, constituted a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. The claimant's own evidence was that his reaction to workplace stresses was disproportionate due to his disability, meaning objectively there was no breach. The respondent had reasonable and proper cause for all actions taken, including removal from the WhatsApp group for breaching group rules.

The tribunal accepted the claimant was disabled by depression and PTSD, but found the respondent did not have actual or constructive knowledge of his disability at the material time. Even if knowledge had been established, the tribunal found the respondent had no PCP of providing insufficient travel time during shifts themselves (only on rotas, which were then adjusted), and that the only reasonable adjustment necessary—ensuring sufficient travel time during shifts—was already being made through active management and reallocation.

The tribunal found that the safeguarding referrals were made for legitimate reasons based on genuine safeguarding concerns about the claimant entering former clients' homes without invitation. The failure to provide a reference was based on advice from the safeguarding authority and solicitors not to do so while the investigation was ongoing. No causal link was established between any protected acts and the alleged detriments.