The claimant commenced employment with the respondent in May 1999 as an administrative officer.  He was then promoted to Executive Officer.  The issue leading to this case was that the claimant has had a history of mental health problems since 2008. This includes anxiety and depression that has been quite severe at times.  

In 2016 the claimant was put on a stress reduction plan and at that point he lost a bag containing sensitive work items. He suggested resigning, but was persuaded not to do anything rash.   A senior executive officer in or around the same time gave a presentation on mental health in which he stated that 49% of people would have mental health problems at some stage stating that half of the room could be regarded as ‘nutters’.  In 2017 the claimant fainted in work.  There was no answer to why he had fainted.  The respondent wanted to have occupational health review him. The claimant was not keen on this on the basis that he had a previous negative experience with occupational health.  He informed his line manager at the time that he was on prescription diazepam.  After there was a higher dosage than normal (which the claimant informed the respondent of) it was found that he should not be driving during work.  The claimant was not happy with this as he had to then get public transport or taxis at greater expense and inconvenience. 

Issues persisted throughout 2017 and into 2018 where the claimant made applications for reduced working hours on the basis of ill-health and asked for greater mental health support. In April 2018 he contacted HR Mediation and Investigations stating that he was considering resigning and claiming constructive dismissal on the basis of how he has been treated. There were accusations at the time that the claimant was undermining his line manager.  The claimant was subsequently called into an interview with his line manger wishing to challenge his behaviour.  This was noted as an ‘informal’ meeting yet the Tribunal found otherwise considering that there was instant mention of the Equality and Diversity Policy and Standards of Behaviour Policy.  Interestingly, when this was discussed with HR an email was sent to a senior manager stating that it had been handled very badly and there was no appreciation of the responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010.   Despite many points where the claimant stated they were thinking of resigning this did not happen for some time but there was a grievance submitted and he went off sick.  There continued a range of meetings during this absence about steps that could be put in place to allow for a return to work. This include moving location yet this was not seemingly feasible for the claimant.  A whole series of meetings (which is too voluminous to detail in this case review) continued until the claimant resigned giving his notice in May 2019. 

The claimant brought a series of claims relating to constructive dismissal as well as disability discrimination on the basis of the failure to make reasonable adjustments. It is this latter point which is the most interesting from the case.  The Tribunal decided that there had been a constructive dismissal with the way in which the claimant’s issues were dealt with leading to a fundamental breach of the contract. In terms of the reasonable adjustments it was found that the failure to offer workplace mediation also fell into that category.  There were also other matters in terms of the level of contact with the claimant and the need for reduced hours.  The Tribunal found that had the respondent been acting reasonable if would have notified the claimant of the option of workplace mediation and it would have given the claimant reasonable time to consider whether that was an option. Therefore, the claimant succeeded in his claim. 

 Practical Lessons

This case involved a myriad of issues which were too voluminous to fully explore in this review. The interesting point that does arise is that the failure to offer workplace mediation led to it being disability discrimination considering it was seen as a reasonable adjustment. As an accredited mediator, I can see the benefits that arise from mediation especially within the workplace.  Where such an option is available it must be taken into account in dealing with the disputes that may arise especially where there are quite complex inter-personal issues as arose in this case.  
https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mr-d-foat-v-department-for-work-and-pensions-2301877-slash-2019-and-others