Claimant v Transport for London

The tribunal found that the respondents had implemented reasonable adjustments following Occupational Health advice, including remote working 4 days per week, flexibility with finish times, regular breaks, and excusal from site visits. The claimant's evidence that adjustments were only made 'on paper' was not supported by documentary evidence. Contemporaneous documents corroborated that adjustments were actively implemented and monitored through workplace risk assessments.

The tribunal found that the alleged PCPs did not exist. There was no requirement not to take sick leave or special leave during probation. The Attendance at Work Policy and evidence showed that sick leave was permitted, and the claimant was actually given time off for medical appointments. The tribunal found overwhelming evidence that no such blanket requirements existed as alleged by the claimant.

The tribunal found that the claimant's dismissal was due to genuine performance concerns, not anything arising from his disability. Ms Norman provided detailed evidence of performance issues throughout the probation period including failure to lead meetings, poor quality reporting, lack of proactive planning, and inability to work independently as required for a Project Manager role. The decision to extend probation and ultimately dismiss was based on performance, not disability-related absence or symptoms.

The tribunal found that Ms Norman's comments about potentially extending probation due to absences, and references to 'unexpected absences', were part of legitimate performance management under the Probation Policy. The tribunal found these were not unwanted conduct that violated the claimant's dignity or created a hostile environment. The context showed Ms Norman was following policy and seeking to support the claimant, including making Occupational Health referrals.

The tribunal found that the claimant's dismissal was not because he raised grievances or complained of discrimination. The decision was based on ongoing performance concerns that pre-dated the protected acts. The tribunal accepted the respondents' evidence that performance issues had been raised informally from early in the probation period and the decision-making process was driven by legitimate performance management rather than retaliation for complaints.