Ms V Manterfield (formerly Siviter) v North Lincolnshire Council: 1811005/2018
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 1811005/2018
Between
Ms V Manterfield (formerly Siviter)ClaimantNorth Lincolnshire CouncilRespondent
Before
Employment Judge O’NeillMr Jones (instructed by Counsel) for claimantMr Anderson (instructed by Counsel) for respondentDate 27 July 2019
JUDGMENT
[1]The name of the Claimant shall be amended to read as follows – Vivien Manterfield.[2]The claim for disability discrimination under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 in respect of the period 31 May 2018 to 31 October 2018 fails and is dismissed.[3]The claim for failure to make a reasonable adjustment contrary to section 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010 in respect of the period 31 May 2018 to 31 October 2018 fails and is dismissed. JUDGMENT having been delivered orally to the parties on 20 June 2019 and written reasons having been requested in accordance with Rule 62(3) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, the following reasons are provided:
REASONS
[1]At the outset of the hearing the tribunal dealt with two preliminary applications of the claimant.[2]The claimant wishes to be known by her married name of Manterfield and the record of the proceedings will be amended accordingly by consent.[3]The claimant made an application to add a claim of direct discrimination contrary to Section 13 of the Equality act 2010, this application was refused and reasons given orally on the day of the application. Issues[4]The issues were originally identified at a preliminary hearing before
Judge Maidment and had been further defined today as follows:
[5]The only period under consideration is from 31 May 2018 until 31 October 2018. The only impairment the claimant relies on for the purposes of these proceedings is ADHD/hyperactivity disorder. The respondent accepts the claimant has the disability for the duration of the relevant period.(1) The allegation under Section 15 is that the respondent on being informed of the ADHD diagnosis (a) Failed to allow the claimant to return to her contractual role as recommended by the Occupational Health report of 10 August 2018. (b) Failed to put in place a phased and supported return to work for that role. (c) Failed to discuss reasonable adjustments. (d) Put and retained the claimant on garden leave. (e) Failed to provide a work coach.(2) Does the claimant prove that the respondent subjected her to the treatment listed above and is that treatment unfavourable?(3) Did the respondent treat the claimant as a such because of something arising as a consequence of the disability?(4) Does the respondent show that the treatment was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim?(5) The legitimate aim is said to be three-fold namely (a) Retaining the claimant in employment. (b) Maintaining the welfare of all employees including the claimant. (c) Maintenance of an effective workforce.[6]Reasonable Adjustments – Section 20/21(1) The only PCP the claimant relies on is the requirement of a strategic coordinator to carry out the full range of her responsibilities.(2) The claimant does not rely on the PCPs identified by Judge Maidment at 8.1.2 (sickness absence) and 8.1.3 (alternative roles).(3) Did the application of such a PCP put the claimant at a substantial disadvantage in that in comparison to persons without a disability? (a) She was unable to carry out a full range of duties. (b) More likely to be absent. (c) More likely to be redeployed.(4) Did the respondent take such steps as were reasonable to avoid disadvantage?(5) The claimant contends that the following adjustments should have been made. Those are the adjustments set out in 8.3.1 of Judge Maidment’s order. Evidence[7]There was an agreed bundle of documents paginated and indexed running to 406 pages.[8]The tribunal heard from the claimant and the respondent witnesses Robert Murray, Head of Safeguarding and the claimant’s line Manager from December 2017 and also from Joanne Andrew, Head of Human Resources with the respondent.[9]Mr Ogleby was tendered on the basis that the respondent relied only on paragraphs 1 – 6 of his written statement. Counsel for the claimant indicated he did not wish to cross examine the witness as to paragraph 1 – 6 or at all and those paragraphs of that statement were taken as read.[10]All witnesses gave their evidence under oath having produced a written statement. Law[11]These claims are governed by the Equality Act 2010. The relevant Sections being Section 15 discrimination arising and Sections 20/21 failure to make reasonable adjustments.[12]As both parties were professionally represented sections are not set out in full in this decision.[13]The tribunal have also had regard to the following case law referred to it by the parties Namely: Williams v Swansea University Pension Trustees 2019 ICR 230 Shamoon v Chief Constable RUC 2003 ICR 337 Mezey v South West London Mental Health Trust 2007 IRLR 244 Nagarajan v London Constable 2000 1AC 501 City of York Council v Grosset 2018 ICR 1492 Fulham v Barking LBC 2010 ICR 333 Burke v College of Law 2012 EWCA Civ 87 Griffiths v Secretary of State For Work And Pensions 2015 EWCA Civ 1265 Tarbuck v Sainsburys 2006 IRLR 664 Project Management Institute v Latif 2007 IRLR 579
Findings
[14]Having considered all the evidence both written and oral we made the following findings of fact on the balance of probability. Some of our findings of fact may be contained in the conclusion section to avoid repetition. Some of our conclusions maybe incorporated in the findings section.[15]The claimant joined the respondent Council in 2012 in a senior position as a strategic coordinator after developing a career through probation and other local authorities largely connected with children and young people.[16]Up to 2016 she was managing over sixty members of staff and played a key strategic role in North Lincolnshire Council Children’s services. She was very happy in that role and respected and valued.[17]The claimant’s grievance dated 20 March 2018 makes it clear that matters changed quite abruptly in or about Autumn of 2016 when the Council underwent a restructuring exercise as a result of which her role changed. The protestations made by the claimant at the hearing that she was happy in the role that she had been assigned up to June 2018 are not accepted by the tribunal. Those protestations are incompatible with the grievance and we find the claimant had been unhappy for some time.[18]The claimant by March 2018 was already unhappy in her role. She was dissatisfied with the content of the job and the responsibilities she was given. She felt that she was being deskilled and felt her status was being diminished in her own eyes and that of her peer group. She experienced a loss of self worth which resulted in her asking for example that her manager release her from giving a team report to her peers because she was embarrassed by the triviality of its content in comparison with their work.[19]In addition, the claimant experienced difficulties in her relationship with other members of staff particularly in a team called HSWTP who she had taken to task over regulatory standards and their treatment of her had triggered an episode of work-based stress and anxiety.[20]In the period up to June 2018 the claimant had had a number of periods of absence including in May 2017, August 2017 and May 2018. According to the fit note supplied by the GP these were stress related.[21]The tribunal find that the underlying causes of the first grievance arise from the changes which took place in 2016 and which appear to relate to general reorganisation. We see no evidence whatsoever of any relationship between those changes and the claimant’s unhappiness and the ADHD of the claimant. There is no evidence that she was given diminished responsibilities because of her condition or any other matter relating to her health. The claimant has asserted that there are matters of complaint which have had a serious and adverse impact on her health but she did not assert that her health or condition was a cause of her problems in either the first or indeed the second grievance.[22]An Occupational Health report was obtained on 22 November 2017 and said to follow three periods of stress related absence in that year partly caused by the breakdown in the relationship with colleagues following her exposure of a financial standards issue.[23]The outcome of the Occupational Health report of 22 November 2017 was that the claimant was suffering moderate anxiety and depression for which she was having counselling but was reluctant to take antidepressants. The clinician highlighted that workplace issues, specifically relationship difficulties with colleagues requiring managing. Apart from that little was recommended except for a stress risk assessment exercise.[24]Mr Murray joined the Council in a new role as Head of Safeguarding and became the claimant’s line manager in December 2017. They had a 1-2-1 meeting on 7 December 2017 which included a discussion of the November Occupational Health report. This meeting appears to have been positive and Mr Murray gave the claimant a list of measures which he indicated would be taken by the respondent. That list included the stress risk assessment recommended by the OH and other matters particularly “Viv can contact Rob at anytime if needs to discuss anything or needs additional support outside of the 1-2-1 process; Rob to support flexible working to support Viv; Rob to meet with Viv and Debbie to clarify future role of the team and Viv’s role; Viv will access coaching which Rob will support; Viv to speak to Rob if feeling anxious or needs support”. The tribunal finds these to be reasonable and sensible measures in the light of the Occupational Health report.[25]A formal feedback following the Occupational Health report was given at a meeting dated 6 December 2017 and the letter of 28 December 2017 followed therefrom from Mark Gibbs the Director. He set out a proposed action plan including the removal from the claimant of responsibility for the Humberside teaching partnership which she appeared very happy to accept. These measures appear to have been done to assist the claimant and to take some pressure off her and the claimant appears to have had no grievance or complaint about that.[26]The letter of 28 December 2017 promised a number of things including “a coach; stress risk assessment; working agile, (flexibly); discuss issues with team member Debbie; self help tools provided by welfare department”. This is very much an overlap with those promised by Mr Murray.[27]These matters were for the most part put in hand and the grievance lodged by the claimant in March 2018 does not raise any complaint that those things had not been dealt with. The principal concern of the grievance was the claimant’s perception of diminution of status and job contact and her relationship with colleagues.[28]Mr Murray says that the stress risk assessment was completed as he remembers it as the first one he had done for the Council. He was unsure about what he was doing and needed the help of the claimant to produce the appropriate paperwork to assist him in its completion and then to help him upload it onto the system. The claimant disputes that the risk assessment was completed. There is no copy of the risk assessment and no peripheral paperwork relating to it in the bundle. Although this risk assessment cannot now be found the claimant in her second grievance refers to it as “a further stress risk assessment following from the previous one”. The reference to the previous one suggests that there has been an earlier risk assessment. The absence of a risk assessment paperwork suggests that the claimant is correct and that it was never completed at least to the extent that it became a recoverable document. The tribunal finds that Mr Murray genuinely believes that it had been done but that he is mistaken either in his recollection of completing it or more probably that he made a mistake in failing to log it into the system competently. We draw no adverse inference as to his credibility therefrom.[29]Following the submission of the grievance the respondent convened a meeting with the claimant and her union representative on 9 May 2018 to discuss matters. The director Mr Gibbs summarises what to place in his letter of 25 May 2018.[30]The tribunal finds that Mr Gibbs for the respondent Council was genuinely seeking a solution to enable the claimant to return to work and settle into a role which she would find to be commensurate with her skills set and status and it was envisaged that this would not be a return to her substantive role to a new position. Neither the claimant nor her union representative responded to Mr Gibbs to complain at that stage that his approach was unacceptable. The union rep’s email of 11 June 2018 turns to confirm that there is agreement to the respondent’s plan.[31]Mr Murray in his statement asserts on 15 May he received a telephone call from the claimant in which she indicated that on the advice of the GP returning to her current role would not be good for her emotional health. The claimant denies saying this.[32]The tribunal accepts the evidence of Mr Murray that in the period from December – May 2018 in his dealings with the claimant he had found her very emotional and stressed by matters at work and at home. In March 2018 when the claimant lodged her grievance, she asserted that she was stressed in her role that she feared it would break her and she couldn’t carry on. The exact words in the grievance are “I am at the end of what I can cope and any more will break me. It has made me ill and affected my health and wellbeing”.[33]The tribunal notes that there are differences in the words used by Mr Murray at the hearing to describe the conversation alleged and those under paragraph 21 of his statement. The tribunal finds those differences not to be so material as to render Mr Murray an unreliable witness on this point or generally.[34]The tribunal finds that on the balance of probability there was a conversation between Mr Murray and the claimant on 15 May in which she revealed that she was very stressed and if she returned to her substantial post her GP had indicated in terms that she would be likely to have a further period off and be off for longer.[35]The tribunal is reinforced in that finding by the email Mr Murray sent to his manager Mr Gibbs and to Ms Andrew of HR. This is the nearest document to a contemporary record of the conversation and the tribunal infer that Mr Murray had no reason to write in such terms unless that is what his genuine understanding of what the claimant had said. The tone of the email is supportive of the claimant and indicates that all are looking at a fresh start. The tribunal is also reinforced in that view by the claimant’s own comments about her state of health made in the first grievance.[36]The tribunal concludes that the claimant has misremembered that in May 2018 she had made it clear to Mr Murray that she did not wish to return from sickness absence to her original position at that time but wanted a fresh start in another role. The tribunal makes no adverse inference as to the claimant’s general credibility because of this.[37]At the beginning of June 2018, the situation was such that the claimant’s GP had provided a fit note to the effect that the claimant was fit to return on 4 June. This took Mr Murray somewhat by surprise and no supportive arrangements had been put in place for her return to her original role.[38]Mr Murray arranged with the claimant that she would work from home and she did so. The emails of 1 June 2018 show this was intended to be a temporary measure for a couple of days. A meeting had also been arranged for 5 June 2018 to discuss the new role with the claimant. This was cancelled at short notice because the respondent had not yet written the job description documents or had in writing a substantial description of the role, they had in mind which the claimant now required.[39]At the end of May 2018, the claimant had informed Mr Murray that she now had a diagnosis of ADHD. Mr Murray duly reported this to Ms Andrew the Head of HR. On her advice (Ms Andrew’s advice) they decided to ask the claimant to remain at home on paid leave until they were in a position to identify her requirements. The term garden leave was used and that is a term that Ms Andrew regrets.[40]There were two strands that needed to be pursued during the home leave namely(a) a further Occupational Health report which included advice on how to manage the claimant’s ADHD and any necessary adjustments(b) the job description in the new role needed to be finalised within the council and with the claimant.[41]The tribunal find the decision to put the claimant on paid leave was a reasonable one. The tribunal finds that at that point the claimant was not unhappy with the arrangements and everybody involved believed that a solution would soon be found by way of a new role for the claimant commensurate with her grade, skills and experience. The tribunal further find that the managers involved namely Mr Gibbs, Ms Andrew and Mr Murray were acting in good faith with the aim of looking after the welfare of the claimant and retaining her in work. The tribunal do not find that the respondents were seeking to manage the claimant out of the council’s employment, then or at any time during the relevant period May – October 2018.[42]From 5 June 2018 – 31 October 2018 (and beyond) the claimant remained on paid leave pending a solution namely the new role. The tribunal is satisfied that this decision was not an unreasonable or discriminatory step or amounted to unfavourable treatment. The parties clearly needed more time to formulate a role which the claimant would regard as suitable and thereafter to consider adjustments in the light of medical and Occupational Health advice. However, it would be reasonable to expect the necessary steps to be taken promptly and within a reasonable time frame.[43]Mr Murray obtained the Occupational Health report on 10 August 2018. The job description was not finalised or agreed by the end of October 2018. In fact, the job description was only sent to the claimant for consideration on a date between 26 – 29 October 2018. Other materials had been sent earlier in October namely the structure and the Glanford House review.[44]When the claimant had first been placed on paid leave at home the senior managers were aware that a role was likely to be created within a directorate in a section managed by Lesley Potts. This was likely to be a role suitable for the claimant in the managers view. This role was already in the offering as a consequence of further structural change within the council. Discussions took place between Mr Murray and Ms Potts as a result of which a draft job description was sent to the claimant on 16 July 2018.[45]However, this job description came to nothing because of further changes to the council’s structural plans which resulted in a decision being made to put the role in a different directorate where it would take a slightly different form and therefore Mr Murray went back to the drawing board in discussion with his opposite number in that directorate Mr Jason Whaler.[46]The tribunal find that Mr Murray was not without empathy for the claimant and her position and wanted to resolve her employment situation to her satisfaction and that of the council. The tribunal accepts that he felt frustrated in not being able to finalise her job description as quickly as he would have wished. The tribunal further accepts that in a large council trying to make arrangements across directorate boundaries against a background of operational reorganization will inevitably take time and that such a process multiplies a number of managers involved which requires further final HR valuation and other bureaucratic matters which all take time.[47]The second Occupational Health report dated 10 August 2018, records that as at that time the claimant was well and managing her condition and that an application had been made to Access to Work for a coaching programme. The claimant had done this on the advice of the respondent Equality Officer and had completed the necessary form with the support of Mr Murray as envisaged in his and Mr ‘Gibbs’ previous reports. The claimant was also receiving counselling as provided by the respondent.[48]The Occupational Health report does not flag up the problems the claimant reports as a consequence of remaining on leave. The Occupational Health report records “Vivian reports having no serious health issues and being well at the moment’’. This conflicts with the account given in her second grievance at the end of August in which she alleges health issues due to the paid leave at home being prolonged of the kind envisaged in the case of Mezey.[49]The Occupational Health report of 10 August 2018 makes no recommendations as to how to manage the claimant’s ADHD other than to suggest a further work-related stress risk assessment and a report from a specialist in ADHD.[50]The respondent appears to have taken no steps at all to action those recommendations before the claimant lodged her ET1 but provides an explanation therefor. The explanation for this from both Mr Murray and Ms Andrew is that the council were not creating a role designed specifically for the claimant. They were designing a role that would serve the council’s reorganization plans across the directorate and have a place in the new structure whether or not it was taken up by the claimant or another employee. It was expected that this role would be broadly acceptable to the claimant and therefore, could be earmarked for her. It was also anticipated that the claimant might require further adjustments to that role as a consequence of her ADHD. It was therefore the advice of Ms Andrew that the respondent’s first step would be to identify the new role and once this was done to ask for further specialist or Occupational Health advice in conjunction with the claimant to determine in respect of the role she would be actually required to do what adjustments might be needed. It was Ms Andrew’s view that they could not agree the adjustments unless the job role was known and defined. By the same token the respondents decided it would be pointless Mr Murray undertaking the new stress risk assessment recommended if the claimant was not to be working in his directorate. The Tribunal find that it was logical that this assessment be done with the claimant and her new manager once the role had been defined.[51]The tribunal accepts that these were the aims of the respondent managers and in the circumstances they are a logical and reasonable route to achieving the desired outcome of everyone namely returning the claimant to work in a new role with appropriate adjustments.[52]The tribunal accepts that the claimant had become very frustrated by October 2018 that she remained on paid leave and the matter had not been resolved. Because of this, she had submitted a second grievance on 31 August 2018 and a grievance hearing took place on 23 October 2018 in respect of which there is an outcome letter of 3 December 2018. The grievance sets out how she felt her health was suffering because of the leave. The tribunal has noted this section but also noted that the claimant has not included such a description in her witness statement and it is absent from the Occupational Health report of August 2018. It is clear from the email of her representative that at least in June she wanted a new role going forward and was not looking to return to her old position.[53]The claimant did not raise any complaints about her retention on leave at home nor did she make any request to return to her formal role until the second grievance in August 2018.[54]Even in that grievance she makes no express request to return to her substantive role. There is a specific section in the grievance which sets out what the claimant was seeking at that time.[55]It is a matter of great regret that the process went on so long and the claimant was kept at home on leave for such a long period. However, being on such leave is not of itself less favourable treatment but depends on all the circumstances.[56]The tribunal is in no doubt that putting the claimant on such leave while the respondent tried to secure a new job role for her with appropriate advice on adjustments was not unfavourable treatment but was treatment which the claimant was content to accept initially and was probably the best arrangement at that time to protect her welfare. These were all appropriate steps in the process towards achieving a final adjustment to a new role.[57]The tribunal finds that that the respondent had a duty to do what they intended within a reasonable timescale. The fact is highlighted in Mezey becomes stronger as time goes by and by the second grievance the claimant is complaining of anxiety and isolation. The tribunal find that those symptoms cannot have been of particular severity because of the Occupational Health report omission to detail them at all.[58]Nevertheless, the tribunal consider that although Mr Murray could well have spent more time reassuring the claimant and making sure that she was aware of the work being done initially between him and Ms Potts and thereafter between him and Mr Whaler to develop the role. It was not unreasonable to maintain the claimant on paid leave and to approach the matter according to the logical order set out by Ms Andrew. Conclusions Section 15 Claim
Conclusions
[59]The claimant is a person with a disability namely ADHD within the meaning of the Equality Act. She was put on paid leave at home on 5 June 2018 because she had reported to her manager Mr Murray that she had a diagnosis of ADHD. The tribunal find that in this respect she satisfies Section 15(1)(a) to the extent that the garden leave was treatment because she had reported a diagnosis of ADHD.[60]Placing the claimant on paid leave at home in June 2018 did not amount to unreasonable treatment it was a reasonable and sensible approach to a difficult situation to which the anticipated and agreed solution was to place the claimant within an appropriate new role which would take time and about which the respondent would need advice on how to manage her condition and make suitable adjustments.[61]Retaining the claimant on paid leave at home did not amount to unfavourable treatment up to the submission of the grievance on 31 August 2018. The tribunal are satisfied that this continued to be a reasonable course of action.[62]The respondent retained the claimant on paid leave at home even after the submission of her grievance on 31 August in the knowledge that she was now saying she found it stressful and isolating. The respondent had good intentions in so doing but the tribunal notes that the Code provides (as set out in Williams) “even if an employer thinks they are acting in the best interest of a disabled person they may still treat that person unfavourably”. The claimant perceived this to be unfavourable treatment as set out in her second grievance.[63]The tribunal are of the view that this was not unfavourable treatment notwithstanding the claimant’s own perception because the respondents were engaged on an agreed course of conduct to secure the claimant in a new role. During this period the claimant was on full pay, Mr Murray was seeking to reassure her (although he could have gone further) and there is no question of bad faith on the respondent’s part. The tribunal are also not convinced that the claimant was experiencing all the symptoms she sets out in her second grievance and we have had no medical evidence on that point.[64]If we are wrong about that and after 31 August 2018 the leave did constitute unfavourable treatment then the tribunal finds further and in the alternative that the respondents were justified in the approach they took and the time it was taking to resolve the matter. There were underlying complexities to making such arrangements across directorate borders against a wider background of organisational change which account for the time elapsing and as at 31 October 2018 the tribunal do not find that the time taken and the delay were disproportionate in the circumstances but find that the steps taken were for legitimate aims namely maintaining the claimant in employment looking after her welfare and maintaining an effective workforce.[65]In the circumstances we find the claim under Section 15 on the grounds that the claimant had been subjected to home leave fails.[66]The other aspects of Section 15 claim are that unfavourable treatment comprises(a) failing to allow the claimant to return to her original role,(b) failure to place her on a phased return,(c) failure to discuss adjustments(d) failure to supply a work coach.[67]In respect of (b), (c) and (d) we accept the submission made on behalf of the respondent that these were matters that if they arise at all call for a determination under the reasonable adjustment Section of the Act. They are not actions which have been taken because the claimant reported her diagnosis of ADHD nor are they omissions ie actions which should or would have been taken but for the ADHD diagnosis and because of that diagnosis were not taken.[68]In respect of (a) failing to allow the claimant to return to her original role the claimant made no specific request to return in her second grievance in August 2018 or at all. In the grievance the claimant expresses frustration at not having the matter resolved but makes no express request that she wants to return to her former substantive role.[69]She says that she wants her role to be clarified to her satisfaction.[70]The tribunal also finds as already stated that requiring the claimant to remain on paid leave at home was a reasonable step at this time.[71]In all the circumstances all the claims under Section 15 fail. Reasonable Adjustments Section 20/21[72]The claimant has a disability within the meaning of the Act namely ADHD.[73]This was known to the respondent managers by 31 May 2018.[74]The tribunal finds that given her periods of absence and difficulties prior to May 2018 and the respondent’s decision to put the claimant on paid leave at home while they sort a new role for her, that the ADHD probably had a part to play in putting the claimant at a substantial disadvantage in undertaking the full range of duties in her substantial role as strategic coordinator.[75]However, we have had no evidence as to the nature of ADHD and its likely impact on the claimant and her role and whether that would amount to a substantial impact.[76]By the same token we also find it likely that the claimant would be at some disadvantage in her new role. Again, we cannot say the extent of that disadvantage and whether it would be substantial because we have no evidence as to the detail of the new role or the likely impact of the condition on her capacity to perform the full range of duties.[77]In the circumstances, although it is a very low threshold to overcome and that substantial has been determined to mean not trivial, we have had little or no evidence on which to base a finding.[78]However, the claimant asserts that being informed of her diagnosis the respondent should have taken the following steps set out below to ensure that she was not at a substantial disadvantage in her substantive role. Those steps are(a) work coach,(b) additional breaks,(c) additional training,(d) trial periods,(e) stress risk assessments,(f) additional medical advice,(g) not requiring or ceasing to requiring the claimant to remain on paid leave at home(h) access to alternative employment.[79]For convenience we adopt the submission of the claimant that in the context of Section 20/21 of the Equality Act… ” The burden shifts to the respondent where a credible adjustment is suggested by a claimant to show that it was not reasonable”.[80]In that respect we have also taken into account paragraphs 54 and 55 of the Judgment in PMIV Latif.[81]In respect of(a) we note that the claimant on the advice of the Equalities Officer and with the support of Mr Murray had made an application to Access to Work for funds to pay a work coach and this matter was in hand. We have no evidence as to what that work coach might do and why such a coach would be required as a consequence of the ADHD or what effect such a coach might have on levelling the pain field. In the circumstances we find that the claimant has failed to show that a work coach is a credible adjustment and thus the burden has not passed to the respondent. We make the same finding for the same reasons in respect of(b) additional breaks,(c) additional training,(d) trial period (h) access to alternative employment.[82]In respect of the stress risk assessment even if it is a step that the respondent could be expected to take under Section 20 the tribunal finds that it was not a reasonable step to be taken in the relevant period before us for the reasons given by Ms Andrew namely that it was reasonable for the respondent to wait until the role had been defined and for the risk assessment to be undertaken by the new manager in the context of the new role. In respect of additional medical advice, the claim fails for the same reason as related to the risk assessment above. It was reasonable for the respondent to wait until the job role had been properly defined before securing medical or Occupational Health advice.[83]When it became apparent to the respondent that the claimant was having difficulties in her substantive role in conjunction with the claimant an agreement was reached to seek to find a suitable new role. The council’s managers set about doing so. Meanwhile, it was decided by those managers that the claimant be placed on paid leave until such time as the role could be defined and Occupational Health advice obtained. It was further determined that the Occupational Health report be obtained only once the role was defined and the tribunal accepts the logic of Ms Andrew’s approach.[84]The tribunal finds that the time taken was disappointing to both the managers and the claimant but was not disproportionate given the context. This was a cross directorate exercise against a background of wider structural change.[85]The adoption of this process went beyond the duty of an employer in that it encompassed creating a new role and earmark it for the claimant. The tribunal finds that the adoption of this process was in the circumstances a reasonable set of steps to take in reaching a solution and implementing such reasonable adjustments as might ultimately be identified.[86]We find that the respondents were taking appropriate steps given what they did as required by Section 20/21 and have not breached the Equality Act by failing to return her to her substantive post and retaining her on paid leave at home or at all.[87]In the circumstances the claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments in the period between 31 May 2018 – 31 October 2018 fails.