Claimant v Openreach Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that although the respondent did not act in a timely manner in addressing the claimant's concerns and failed to raise them as a grievance earlier, this did not reach the high threshold of conduct likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust and confidence. The respondent did take practical steps to address the concerns including offering a ruggerised laptop, printer, referral to EAP and Occupational Health, and option to seek help from NSR. There was no fundamental breach of contract.
The tribunal found that the PCP (providing location information via GeoPin, GeoHub and Job Packs) did place the claimant at a substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled colleagues. However, the requested adjustment (restoring GeoPin navigation functionality for new sites) was not reasonable given evidence that GeoPin was never designed for this purpose, was due to be replaced within 12 months, and had no capacity for modification. The respondent had already taken reasonable steps including offering ruggerised laptop, printer, pairing with another engineer, and access to Patch Lead and NSR support.
Facts
The claimant, an Advanced Engineer with Autistic Spectrum Disorder, anxiety and depression, worked for Openreach from August 2019 to March 2023. From September 2022, following his return from sick leave, he discovered that the GeoPin app navigation functionality for locating new build sites had been removed, making it extremely difficult for him to locate job sites. This caused severe anxiety and deterioration in his mental health. Despite raising concerns in November 2022 and the respondent offering various solutions (ruggerised laptop, printer, support from NSR and Patch Lead), no solution restored the GeoPin functionality he needed. His mental health declined to the point where he feared another breakdown, and he resigned in February 2023.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed both claims. The constructive dismissal claim failed because, although the respondent delayed in addressing concerns and failed to raise a formal grievance promptly, it did take practical steps to help and this did not reach the threshold of conduct likely to destroy trust and confidence. The reasonable adjustments claim failed because restoring GeoPin functionality was not reasonable given it was never designed for this purpose and was being phased out, and the respondent had already taken reasonable alternative steps to support the claimant.
Practical note
Even where an employer accepts disability and knowledge, and where a disabled employee suffers substantial disadvantage from a workplace practice, a failure to make adjustments claim will fail if the proposed adjustment is not technically feasible and the employer has offered reasonable alternative adjustments, even if those alternatives do not fully address the employee's needs.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3304881/2023
- Decision date
- 3 February 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- telecoms
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Advanced Engineer
- Service
- 4 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- union