Claimant v The Chief Constable of Northumbria Police
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that from 9 December 2022, when the supportive measures document was produced and accepted by the claimant, Northumbria Police had complied with its duty to make reasonable adjustments and removed the disadvantage. The document provided for home working with flexible attendance at the office for training, CPD and one-to-ones with adjustments such as flexibility on shift times and part-day attendance. The claimant herself conceded during cross-examination that these adjustments were reasonable and removed the disadvantage.
The tribunal accepted that the respondent had legitimate aims (providing efficient and acceptable policing services) and that the PCPs requiring office attendance were proportionate means of achieving those aims. Once the adjustments in the supportive measures document were in place, the PCPs in their 'diluted' form (allowing home working with periodic office attendance for training/CPD/1:1s with adjustments) were an appropriate and reasonably necessary way to achieve the aim. The tribunal found nothing less discriminatory could have been done.
Facts
The claimant, a police constable with PTSD and IBS, worked from home during the Covid pandemic. In October 2022, Northumbria Police directed employees to return to office-based working, including for training on a new system. The claimant requested to continue working from home as a reasonable adjustment. Following OH referral, discussions with management and her Federation representatives, a supportive measures document was produced in December 2022 allowing her to continue home working with periodic office attendance for training, CPD and one-to-ones, with adjustments such as flexible shift times and part-day attendance. The claimant was off sick from 8 November 2022 and did not return until August 2023.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed both claims. It found that the supportive measures document produced on 9 December 2022 (and accepted by the claimant through her Federation representative) represented compliance with the duty to make reasonable adjustments and removed the disadvantage. The claimant herself conceded during cross-examination that the adjustments were reasonable. The tribunal also found the PCPs were a proportionate means of achieving the respondent's legitimate aim of providing efficient policing services once the adjustments were in place.
Practical note
An employer can successfully defend a reasonable adjustments claim if it produces a detailed, individualised supportive measures document addressing the employee's disability-related needs, even if the employee does not immediately return to work — particularly where the employee accepts through their representative that the proposed adjustments are reasonable.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2500193/2023
- Decision date
- 17 March 2024
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Police Constable
- Service
- 26 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No