Claimant v Atos International Services Ltd

Two detriments (failure to organise promotion panel from 10 February 2021 and recruitment of Alex Kim announced 5 January 2022) were not presented within the three-month time limit. The tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time, and these claims were therefore dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.

The tribunal found that the respondent's standard redundancy process (the admitted PCP) did not place the claimant at a substantial disadvantage. The process was stopped when the claimant was seriously affected by his conditions in early 2022, and only restarted in November 2022 when occupational health advised he was fit to work. The tribunal found no failure to pause or adjust the process, and that indefinite suspension would have been unreasonable. A second claim about the travel policy was withdrawn.

The same two detriments alleged as harassment (failure to organise promotion panel and recruitment without involvement) were not presented within the time limit. The tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. In any event, the tribunal found the conduct did not relate to disability, had no discriminatory purpose, and did not have (or reasonably have) the required effect of violating dignity or creating a hostile environment.

The claimant raised a grievance alleging discrimination on 13 September 2022 (a protected act). However, the tribunal found that the decision-maker (Ms Deykes) was not aware of the grievance when she dismissed him in February 2023, so the dismissal could not have been because of the protected act. Also, the claimant had been placed at risk of redundancy in January 2022, months before the protected act, undermining any causal link.

The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was a genuine redundancy — the claimant's global role had not developed as planned, had significantly diminished, and the business need had shifted to regional (North America) roles. The dismissal was not a sham. The tribunal found the process was fair: adequate consultation (extended over many months to accommodate the claimant's health), no unfair selection pool issues, reasonable support to find alternative roles, and a genuine appeal process. The tribunal concluded dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.