Claimant v EDF Energy Customers Limited

Tribunal found the requirement to attend Exeter office monthly was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of improving team integration, collaboration and training. Monthly travel was the minimum needed to achieve this aim and was accompanied by payment of travel expenses, overnight accommodation and travel time.

Tribunal found that providing coaching to the claimant was not unfavourable treatment but was standard coaching genuinely intended to assist her after a period of absence following her own description of being 'stressed'. The coaching was not performance management and was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of improving claimant's efficiency and wellbeing.

Tribunal found that comments made by Mr Edwards on 6 and 15 June 2022 about the menopause were well-intended and appropriate in context of claimant having raised that her disability was affecting her working day. The tribunal also found that Mrs Shaw did not disbelieve the claimant's menopausal symptoms during the appeal process and claimant ought not reasonably to have perceived the questioning as creating an offensive environment.

Tribunal found that Mrs Shaw's comment about the 'viability' of claimant's employment in the appeal outcome letter was not made because of the protected act (raising a grievance) but because the parties were at an impasse that required resolution. The claimant refused to commute to Exeter at all whilst respondent required monthly attendance. The tribunal also found the comment was not detrimental as it was a reference to a dispute requiring resolution for the benefit of both parties.

Tribunal found that respondent was not in breach of the implied duty of trust and confidence. The tribunal found the respondent consulted meaningfully, the claimant's redesignation as homeworker was agreed, the Collective Agreement permitted monthly travel to Exeter, the request was reasonable, the grievance was fairly handled, and no disability discrimination occurred. Tribunal also found claimant resigned because she did not wish to commute to Exeter at all, not because of any breach.

Tribunal found the claimant resigned and was not dismissed, so no entitlement to redundancy payment arose. Tribunal also found there was no evidence the claimant's role was redundant and that by allowing homeworking with monthly commute to Exeter, respondent had provided suitable alternative employment.