Claimant v John Lewis PLC

The only in-time incident (5 September 2022 supervisor delay) did not constitute unfavourable treatment. Tribunal found claimant sensitive to perceived slights and did not adduce sufficient evidence to shift burden of proof. Other alleged incidents were out of time and not just and equitable to extend time, as claimant could have brought claim in April 2022 but chose to return to work.

The only in-time incident (5 September 2022 supervisor delay) could not reasonably be expected to violate dignity or create hostile environment. Tribunal found waiting a few minutes for supervisor did not constitute harassment. Other alleged incidents (January 2021 interaction with Mr Waite, being summoned by loudspeaker, performance appraisal reference to diversity contribution, being required to work late on Thursdays, not being told breaks in advance) were out of time and not just and equitable to extend.

Claim regarding self-service tills (SCOs) was out of time — adjustments had been in place since 13 April 2022 and claimant chose not to bring claim despite considering it. On merits, tribunal found reasonable adjustments were made: initially claimant could refuse SCO work, then from April 2022 all managers instructed not to roster her on SCOs. Regarding training: tribunal found no PCP requiring standing at high desk (other desks available) and no PCP requiring staff to ask for training time (training was scheduled by management).

Tribunal found the 'final straw' incident on 8 October 2022 (brief conversation with Ms Jackson) was not calculated or likely to destroy trust and confidence and was not an effective cause of resignation. Claimant actually resigned on 18 October 2022 to avoid disciplinary action over an inappropriate LinkedIn post, not because of any breach. Previous alleged breaches pre-dating sick leave from 12 April 2022 had been affirmed by claimant's successful return to work on 11 June 2022. No subsequent breaches occurred between June and October 2022 to re-ignite earlier issues.

As there was no breach of contract on the part of the respondent entitling the claimant to resign, the claim for notice pay (wrongful dismissal) failed. Claimant resigned without notice and was not constructively dismissed.