Ms S Flatman v Essex County Council
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Auerbach |
| Neutral Citation | UKEAT/0097/20/BA |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal - Constructive dismissal,Not landmark |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Published date | 29 April 2021 |
Copyright 2021
Appeal No. UKEAT/0097/20/BA
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
ROLLS BUILDING, 7 ROLLS BUILDINGS, FETTER LANE, LONDON, EC4A 1NL
At the Tribunal
On Tuesday, 12 January 2021
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE AUERBACH
(SITTING ALONE)
MS S FLATMAN APPELLANT
ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL RESPONDENT
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
UKEAT/0097/20/BA
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant MR A OHRINGER
(of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Pattinson and Brewer Solicitors
Mermaid House
2 Puddle Dock
London
EC4V 3DB
For the Respondent MS J SMEATON
(of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Essex Legal Services
Seax House
Victoria Road South
Chelmsford
Essex
CM1 1QH
UKEAT/0097/20/BA
SUMMARY
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Constructive Dismissal
The Claimant worked in the Respondent’s school as a Learning Support Assistant. Her duties
included giving physical support and assistance to pupils. In particular, from September 2017,
she was required to give support to a disabled pupil, which involved her in daily weight-bearing
and lifting work. Over a period of months she repeatedly requested, but was not provided with,
manual handling training, despite assurances that steps would be taken to arrange this. From
around Christmas time she also began to develop back pain, of which she began to inform the
Respondent in January 2018. At the beginning of May the Claimant was signed off for three
weeks with back pain. In communications on 21 and 22 May, the head teacher inform ed the
Claimant that she would, upon her return, not be required to l ift the particular pupil concerned,
that she would be looking at moving t he Claimant to another class in the next school year, and
that training was being organised for her and other staff in the following few weeks.
The Claimant subsequently resigned and claimed unfair constructive dismissal.
The Tribunal found that the Respondent was in breach of the Manual Handling Operations
Regulations 1992. But it found that the Respondent was not in fundamental breach of its implied
duty to take reasonable care for the Claimant’s health and safety. In so concluding, the Tribunal
took account of the communications between the Claimant and the head teacher on 21 and 22
May 2018, w hich, it found, demonstrated that the Respondent had g enuine concern for the
Claimant’s health and safety, and had taken steps to ensure that she would not in future be
exposed to danger. The Tribunal concluded that the Claimant was not constructively dismissed,
and so dismissed her complaint of unfair dismissal.
The Claimant appealed.
Held: the complaint was that the Respondent had breached the implied duty to provide a safe
work environment, by failing, despite requests, to provide manual handling training, over the
whole period of many months during which the Claimant was required to carry out such tasks,
To continue reading
Request your trial