Claimant v Arrow Enterprise Computing Solutions Limited

Tribunal found (1) allegation regarding health and safety breach report by Mr Hewitt failed as Mr Hewitt was unaware of claimant's disability and anyone entering building site unauthorised would have been reported; (2) comment by Mr Dobson at disciplinary hearing asking 'how can we trust your condition won't impact future decision making' related to disability but was asked to explore mitigation and ensure behaviour wouldn't recur, not because of disability. Respondent satisfied burden of proof.

Tribunal found most alleged acts of unfavourable treatment did not occur or were not because of something arising from disability. Final written warning predated sick leave so could not be because of it, and related to admitted conduct breach. Where acts occurred (e.g. criticism of work), they were legitimate management actions related to performance issues, not increased anxiety or sick leave. Tribunal found respondent had been highly supportive throughout.

Tribunal concluded there were no PCPs as alleged. Where adjustments were recommended by Occupational Health (stress risk assessment, regular meetings, phased return, quiet space, regular breaks), all were implemented. Tribunal observed this was a case where respondent 'had done all that they possibly could to support the claimant'. Holiday policy and refusal to move teams did not amount to PCPs placing claimant at substantial disadvantage.

Tribunal examined each of 19 alleged acts. Where conduct occurred and related to disability, tribunal found it did not have the purpose of violating dignity or creating hostile environment, and it was not reasonable for conduct to have that effect. Examples: final warning related to conduct not disability; mention of PIP was legitimate management action and claimant informed it would not be implemented; comment 'what have you got to be stressed about' was attempt to understand issues; criticism of work was careful, sensitive feedback intended to improve performance.

Grievance on 19 January 2022 was a protected act. Alleged detriment was manager stating claimant was 'hostile' and relationship had 'broken down' on 18 March 2022. Tribunal accepted this was a detriment but found it was not because of the grievance. It was a response to two separate incidents: conflict over holiday arrangements in February 2022 and claimant's email on page 393 refusing to engage with manager. Email followed manager's supportive response to grievance outcome.

Claimant's complaint unclear but understood to relate to 3 days' contractual holiday not carried over. Tribunal found claimant received all 20 days' statutory leave (28 days less 8 bank holidays). Any contractual leave claim out of time (December 2021 issue, claim July 2022) and not reasonably practicable to present in time. Claimant given advice on time limits in January 2022 but gave no explanation for delay until June 2022.