Claimant v Concentrix CVG Intelligent Contact Limited

The tribunal found that the respondent did not commit a fundamental breach of contract. The respondent consistently supported the claimant through multiple flexible working adjustments, phased returns, and implementation of occupational health recommendations. The tribunal found no breach of the implied term of trust and confidence; the respondent's actions were supportive and reasonable throughout.

The tribunal found that the claimant's failure to qualify for bonuses was not because of something arising from her disability. The respondent adjusted bonus metrics to accommodate her longer call times and disregarded hospital appointments from attendance calculations. When she did not qualify, it was because of absences and performance unrelated to the adjustments already made, not because of something arising from her disability.

The tribunal found that most of the alleged PCPs did not exist or were not applied to the claimant as alleged. For the PCPs that did exist (attendance policy triggers, bonus scheme metrics, not recording meetings), the respondent either applied them with adjustments or they did not place the claimant at substantial disadvantage. The tribunal noted that all the reasonable adjustments the claimant proposed had in fact already been implemented by the respondent.

The tribunal considered 10 separate allegations of harassment and found none were made out. The tribunal found that incidents were either factually inaccurate as alleged, were genuine errors or misunderstandings, or were legitimate management actions taken in support of the claimant. None of the conduct, when viewed objectively and in context, had the purpose or effect of violating the claimant's dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.

The tribunal found that the claimant's informal complaint of 13 April 2023 was a protected act. However, the alleged detriments either did not occur as alleged (Ms Ashworth did not cease communication; Mr Amin appropriately took on management responsibilities) or were not because of the protected act (the reference to a fictitious meeting on 11 May was a genuine administrative error). The claimant was either not subjected to detriment or any detriment was not because she made a protected act.