Claimant v Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board

The tribunal found a cumulative breach of the implied term of trust and confidence through: failure to properly handle staffing concerns raised repeatedly over years; failure to address bullying culture; mishandling the request to reduce hours; failure to make reasonable adjustments to night working; mishandling the foster child request; failure to adhere to sickness absence process; and very poor handling of the grievance with unreasonable delays spanning eight months. The claimant resigned in response and did not affirm the contract.

While the claimant succeeded on constructive unfair dismissal, the tribunal found she was not discriminated against contrary to the Equality Act. The breaches relied upon did not amount to discrimination arising from disability or failure to make reasonable adjustments as the claimant was not disabled at the relevant times or the respondent lacked knowledge or the claims were out of time.

The claim related to refusal to allow the claimant to foster a child in August 2022 while she was on sick leave. The tribunal found the claimant was not disabled at that time (only from 27 October 2022 onwards, which was conceded). The respondent also could not reasonably have been expected to know she was disabled in August 2022 as she had only recently commenced sick leave under a 4-week fit note.

The tribunal found the claimant was not disabled in July 2022 when rostered for night shifts (the pleaded PCP). In relation to later periods, the respondent lacked knowledge of disability or substantial disadvantage linked to disability. The tribunal also found that reasonable measures were in place (night shift working would be looked at on return) and there was no failure at the material time. The claimant was not saying night shifts were preventing her return — her ill health and outstanding grievance were.

In relation to the alleged PCP of not handling grievances in a timely manner, the tribunal found no such PCP existed. The delays in the claimant's grievance were due to individual circumstances (leave, sickness, errors) not a policy or practice of failing to meet timescales. No evidence of a general provision, criterion or practice was shown.