Claimant v Threesixty Services LLP

Tribunal found that the PCPs identified were either not applied to the claimant or did not place the claimant at a substantial disadvantage. In particular, the Targets PCP was found to have been applied but did not disadvantage the claimant given the respondent's flexible approach and lack of undue pressure. Other PCPs were found not to be applied or not to cause disadvantage.

Tribunal found the treatment complained of (e.g. KB's management style, feedback, appraisal process, workload discussions) was not unfavourable treatment arising from disability but appropriate management. The claimant's perception of hostility and negativity was not supported by contemporaneous evidence. No causal link established between disability-related 'somethings' and the alleged unfavourable treatment.

Tribunal found the respondent did not fail in its duty. From mid-May 2022 the respondent was aware the claimant might be at a disadvantage and took genuine steps to support the claimant, including workload adjustments, exploratory meetings, offers of different roles, and grievance support. The respondent was navigating a complex situation and no straightforward adjustment could be identified. By the time adjustments such as a changed role or return-to-work support could be implemented, the claimant was unfit to return.

The protected act was the claimant's assertion of disability discrimination in the grievance meeting on 19 August 2022. The alleged detriments (settlement proposal on 7 September 2022 and alleged lack of contact) were not detriments and not caused by the protected act. The settlement proposal was a reasonable, non-threatening option given the claimant's poor health and the negative impact of work, not a punishment for raising the grievance.

Tribunal found no fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. There was no ongoing discrimination, no failure to make reasonable adjustments, no unreasonable delay or manner in the grievance process, no lack of support for return to work, and no hostile environment. The respondent's actions regarding sick pay and insurance were reasonable and went beyond contractual obligations. The claimant resigned without just cause.

The claimant resigned with immediate effect and was not constructively dismissed. Therefore no notice pay was due.

The claimant was not dismissed. They resigned. The tribunal found no constructive dismissal, so the unfair dismissal claim failed.