Mrs M Knight v Hull City Council: 1805424/2020
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 04 March 2022 |
| Date | 04 March 2022 |
| Citation | 1805424/2020 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 22 March 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Disability Discrimination |
Case No: 1805424/2020
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mrs M Knight
Respondent: Hull City Council
Heard by CVP: On: 6 to 10 December 2021
Before:
Employment Judge JM Wade
Mr D Wilks
Dr D Bright
Representation
Claimant: In person
Respondent: Mr R Quickfall (counsel)
RESERVED JUDGMENT
The unanimous Judgment of the Tribunal is:
1. The claimant’s Equality Act complaints are decided as follows:
1.1. Disability related harassment: dismissed
1.2. Failure to make reasonable adjustments: the failure to transfer the claimant
to an existing vacancy (practice manager role) and/or provide a supervisor,
or other support such as HR support, or an advocate, succeed; otherwise
dismissed;
1.3. Section 15: succeeds as to the respondent’s failure to retain/redeploy the
claimant; otherwise dismissed.
2. The claimant’s complaint of unfair dismissal is well founded and succeeds.
REASONS
Introduction, complaints and issues
1. The claimant had a long history of working in local government. From 2014
to 2020 she held two posts for the respondent – 21 hours in member services;
and 18 hours in housing. She was at all material times disabled by fibromyalgia,
depression and anxiety, with, by late 2018, symptoms of PTSD. Pain, fatigue,
Case No: 1805424/2020
and psychological symptoms were part of her daily life, treated with medication
and other strategies.
2. In 2017, and from 2018, she had persistent absence from work, being very
unwell. A restructure of housing started in 2019 and resulted in her being given
notice to terminate her housing post for redundancy, in February 2020. The
redundancy took effect in May 2020.
3. The claimant presented clear and concise details about her complaints in
her claim form. She then presented forty eight pages of particulars going back to
events in 2014. She was refused permission to amend her claims other than to
re-label those contained in the claim form. Through two case management
discussions the claims were clarified as the allegations below: unfair dismissal
and three forms of disability discrimination.
4. The claimant commenced ACAS conciliation on 31 July 2020, with a
certificate issued on 27 August and the claim presented on 23 September 2020.
Her effective date of dismissal was 7 May 2020 - the unfair dismissal complaint
was presented in time. It was due to be heard by the Tribunal in May of 2021 but
by reason of judicial resources, was unable to be heard then and came before
this Tribunal in December 2021. Evidence and submissions were completed in
December but the case was reserved for deliberations of the panel, completed in
February 2022.
5. Any Equality Act allegations before 1 May 2020 were potentially out of time.
Mr Quickfall was content to leave limitation in the Tribunal’s hands – it was not a
pleaded defence and he accepted the balance of prejudice was not in his client’s
favour.
6. The factual allegations and matters for consideration in determining the
unfair dismissal complaint were:
6.1. Whether the respondent’s reason (redundancy) was a “sham” -
this was pursued by the claimant because she did not believe a
redundancy situation had existed?
6.2. Whether external advertised vacancies were brought to the
claimant's attention or offered to the claimant as alternative roles?
6.3. Whether the redeployment bulletin which contained vacancies
between 30 January 2020 and 7 May 2020 were provided to the
claimant to consider alternative roles?
6.4. Whether the respondent should have provided to the claimant a
guide/advocate/mental health support and/or referred the claimant to
occupational health/stress risk assessment/wellness action plan so to
ensure the claimant understood the redundancy consultation process
and could engage in the same?
6.5. Whether the respondent should have appointed the claimant to two
posts which had been ring fenced in the redundancy consultation
process?
6.6. Whether the respondent could have offered the claimant some hours
to work from the available vacant posts in the structure?
6.7. Whether the claimant should have been slotted into the structure at a
grade at the same level or a lower grade?
7. The allegations of adjustments which the respondent ought reasonably to
have made were:
7.1. Transferring the claimant to fill an existing vacancy;
7.2. Arranging training for the claimant;
To continue reading
Request your trial