Claimant v John Lewis Plc

The tribunal found the respondent engaged constructively with the claimant to provide reasonable adjustments. The respondent was not obliged to implement every GP suggestion. The claimant refused to engage with occupational health. The adjustments made were reasonable in the circumstances.

All alleged detriments in claim one failed. The tribunal found no evidence that any treatment was on the ground of any protected disclosure. The claimant failed to adequately identify information disclosed or relevant failures. Many claims were out of time.

The claimant failed to prove the absence that led to dismissal was disability-related. She had agreed adjustments, returned to work, then chose not to attend. She did not communicate she was unfit. The tribunal found she was capable of work at the material time.

The respondent established a potentially fair reason: misconduct (unauthorised absence). The tribunal found dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses. The claimant had agreed to return, failed to attend without explanation or new fit note. The investigation and procedure were reasonable.

The sole reason for dismissal was the claimant's unauthorised absence, not any protected disclosure. Ms Ireland had limited knowledge of alleged disclosures and the tribunal found the reason was conduct, not whistleblowing.

All alleged detriments in claim three failed. Many were out of time, some were abuse of process, and all failed on the merits. The tribunal found no evidence any treatment was on the ground of protected disclosures. The claimant failed to identify information disclosed or adequately particularise claims.

The claimant's failure to attend work without explanation was a fundamental breach of contract. The respondent was entitled to accept the breach and treat the contract as at an end without notice pay.

The tribunal found the claimant was paid all wages due. The respondent's payroll calculations were accurate. The claimant provided no proper evidence as to why the £664.90 paid in February 2023 was incorrect.

All harassment allegations failed. The tribunal found no evidence of harassing purpose or effect. Ms Ireland's actions were part of legitimate management processes and efforts to accommodate the claimant. Most conduct did not relate to disability.

The claimant was paid the correct amount. There was no detrimental treatment. The claimant failed to identify which protected acts caused the alleged victimisation. No reasonable worker would consider the payment to be a detriment.