Claimant v National Highways Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the respondent did not apply the PCP requiring full-time six-on-three-off shift work to the claimant after October 2021, as he was offered part-time working from that date. The PCP was only re-applied from June 2022. More critically, the tribunal found the claimant failed to establish he was put at any substantial disadvantage by the PCP. The contemporaneous medical evidence, including the November 2021 Occupational Health report, showed the claimant was fit for full-time operational duties. The claimant never raised fatigue or atrial fibrillation as a reason preventing him from working full-time in any of his medical consultations or in his original flexible working request. The tribunal concluded the respondent could not reasonably have had knowledge of any substantial disadvantage until late May/early June 2022, at which point the respondent immediately referred the claimant to Occupational Health — a reasonable step.
The tribunal found the respondent did not fail to allow the claimant to continue part-time working, because on 14 June 2022 (the day after his resignation) the respondent offered to reinstate the four-on-five-off pattern with immediate effect. The claimant did not respond to this offer. The tribunal further found that ending the six-month trial of flexible working (on notice from 11 May 2022 to end-June 2022) did not constitute a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The claimant knew from October 2021 that the arrangement was a trial. The decision to end it was driven by significant staffing shortages at Toddington outstation, was communicated with ample notice, and the respondent offered to reinstate the arrangement when staffing allowed. The tribunal also found the claimant resigned for multiple reasons (including disputes over annual leave and work trousers) not solely the working pattern issue. Even if there had been a breach, the claimant affirmed the contract by continuing to work and engage with the respondent on other matters for over a month after being notified on 11 May.
Facts
The claimant, a Traffic Officer employed since 2008, had atrial fibrillation and Tachy-Brady syndrome (pacemaker fitted July 2021). He worked early shifts only from 2013 as a reasonable adjustment for peripheral neuropathy from a 2010 workplace accident. In October 2021 he requested part-time working (four days on, five days off) citing health reasons and caring responsibilities for his wife. A six-month trial began January 2022. In May 2022, facing severe staff shortages at Toddington outstation, the respondent decided to end the trial from end-June 2022, though offering to accommodate the pattern where possible. The claimant resigned 13 June 2022, the day before the respondent offered to reinstate his part-time pattern immediately.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed both claims. On reasonable adjustments, the claimant failed to prove he suffered substantial disadvantage from the six-on-three-off shift pattern or that the respondent had knowledge of any such disadvantage until late May 2022. The medical evidence showed he was fit for full-time work, and he never raised atrial fibrillation or fatigue as barriers to full-time working in medical consultations or his original flexible working request. On constructive dismissal, the respondent did not breach the trust and confidence term because it gave proper notice the trial would end (driven by legitimate staffing needs), offered to accommodate where possible, and crucially offered to reinstate the pattern the day after resignation. The claimant also affirmed the contract by continuing to work and engage with the respondent for over a month after being notified.
Practical note
A disabled employee requesting flexible working must clearly communicate medical reasons and substantial disadvantage to trigger reasonable adjustment duties; vague references to 'health reasons' in a flexible working request, contradicted by contemporaneous occupational health reports of fitness for full duty, will not suffice to establish employer knowledge or substantial disadvantage.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3313411/2022
- Decision date
- 5 April 2024
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Traffic Officer
- Service
- 14 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep