Mr M Robins v Surrey and Borders NHS Foundation Trust: 2301267/2024

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 2301267/2024

Between

Mr Mark RobinsClaimant

Surrey & Borders NHS Foundation Trust Sitting At: London South (by CVP) th th th st ndRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Tueje

Mr Yetman (instructed by counsel) for respondent

Date 18 December 2025

JUDGMENT

The unanimous decision of the Tribunal is as follows:

[1]The claim for unfair dismissal under section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is not well-founded and is dismissed.

[2]The claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments is not well-founded and is dismissed.

REASONS

[1]In summary, this matter relates to the Claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal, and disability discrimination arising from an alleged failure to make reasonable adjustments.

[2]Early conciliation began on 7th November 2023, and ended on 19th December 2023. The claim was presented on 12th January 2024.

[3]The final hearing was listed on 18th to 22nd August 2025. The Claimant was represented by his fiancée, Ms Paine. The Respondent was represented by Mr Yetman, counsel.

[4]The Tribunal established at the outset whether any reasonable adjustments would be required. The Claimant requested periodic breaks. It was agreed there would be a 10-minute break approximately every hour, but the Claimant would say if he required any additional or more frequent breaks.

[5]The Tribunal was provided with the following documents for the final hearing:5.1 1284-page hearing bundle;

5.2 29-page witness statement from the claimant;

5.3 6-page witness statement from Mr John Jefferies, the Respondent’s General Manager – Liaison Psychiatry/Health Psychology;

5.4 4-page witness statement from Ms Lorna Payne, the Respondent’s Chief Operating Officer;

5.5 2-page chronology from the Respondent;

5.6 2-page list of key documents from the Respondent;

5.7 1-page List of key characters from the Respondent;

5.8 The final version of the list of issues;

5.9 Closing written submissions on behalf of the Claimant; and

5.10 Closing note on behalf of the Respondent.

[6]Before hearing any evidence the Tribunal heard from the parties regarding two procedural matters. Firstly, the list of issues was not agreed. The Respondent had prepared a list of issues that reflected the standard list of issues. The Claimant sought to add further issues, which the Respondent objected to on the grounds that the new issues went beyond the Claimant’s pleaded case. The parties were asked to use the Tribunal’s reading time to agree a final list of issues, but they failed to agree on this. The Tribunal therefore directed that the list of issues to be used would be the version prepared by the Respondent, omitting those issues not agreed between the parties. The Tribunal provided its reasons as to why each disputed it considered inappropriate to be included in the final list of issue should be omitted. In brief, the list of issues prepared by the Respondent was adequate, and essentially adopted the standard list of issues which are drafted in neutral terms. The Tribunal also considered that some of the Claimant’s proposed amendments either made no material difference to the matters that needed to be determined, or went beyond the scope of the pleaded claim.

[7]The Claimant raised a further issue regarding the timing of receiving certain documents from the Respondent, namely, the chronology, list of key individuals and the Respondent’s witness statements. However, the Claimant clarified through Ms Paine, that he was not asking the Tribunal to make any orders or directions on this. Therefore, the Tribunal heard the Claimant’s concerns, but in accordance with his request, made no order.

[8]The parties relied on the following oral evidence:8.1 The Claimant, who had also prepared a witness statement dated 15th July 2025;

8.2 Mr Jefferies and Ms Payne on behalf of the Respondent.

[9]After hearing the evidence and submissions, on 22nd August 2025 there was insufficient time for the Tribunal to deliberate and announce its judgment. Therefore the Tribunal reconvened on the earliest date all members were available on, which was 29th October 2025.

[10]We acknowledge the time that has elapsed since the final hearing, and we apologise for the delay in issuing this reserved judgment. We would like to thank the parties for their patience. THE ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

[11]The issues for determination, are contained in the final list of issues decided upon by the Tribunal (see paragraph 6) above, which is set out in the Appendix to this judgment. These relate only to the issues relevant to liability.

FINDINGS OF FACT

[12]Unless otherwise stated, the facts below are either agreed or unchallenged. Where there is a dispute of fact, our findings were reached on the balance of probabilities, having considered the witnesses’ evidence, including documents referred to in that evidence, and our assessment of the evidence.

[13]In making findings of fact we have focused on those facts that are relevant to the issues, and those necessary to determine the issues referred to in this judgment. It has not been necessary, and neither would it be proportionate, to determine each and every fact in dispute. We have not referred to every document that we read and/or were taken to in the findings below, but that does not mean it was not considered if it was referred to in the evidence and was relevant to an issue.

Background

[14]In around 2013 the Claimant began volunteering for the Respondent. He secured the volunteering role with the assistance of the Richmond Fellowship, which is a charity supporting people with mental health conditions, to enter or return to work.

[15]His paid employment with the Respondent as an IT Technical Support Engineer began on 4 January 2016. His contract of employment and terms and conditions of employment are in the hearing bundle (see parages 112 to 123).

[16]The Respondent has various written policies and procedures that are relevant to this claim. The policies and the specific provisions relied on are set out below. The Respondent’s Policy and Procedural Documents

[17]The Respondent’s Disciplinary policy is a 104-page document, paragraphs 2.4, 2.5, 8.4, 12.7, 13.5, 14.3 are relied on.

[18]Paragraph 2.4 states: All staff are expected to demonstrate integrity, honesty and a duty of care to people who use services and their carers. Employees are expected to behave in a manner that is conducive to good relations with the general public, their colleagues and managers. As employees of the Trust all staff are required to present a good impression to the general public, to people who use services and their relatives, and to avoid any actions which might jeopardise the reputation over the Trust or its employees.

[19]Paragraph 2.5 states: The Equality Act 2010 makes it unlawful to discriminate directly in employment because of any of the 9 protected characteristics. These are: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion and belief, sex and sexual orientation.

[20]Paragraph 8.4 states: Our Trust will be open, honest and accountable by:• Giving appropriate, timely, honest and relevant feedback to those involved in disciplinary matters

• Ensuring all members of staff understand the standards expected of them

• Reinforcing standards and codes of conduct developed by professional bodies and key stakeholders

• Undertaking an annual impact assessment of disciplinary process is and outcomes

• Publishing monitoring information as required by employment legislation, with action plans to address areas of concern

[21]Paragraph 12.7 states: No formal disciplinary action should be taken against an employee until the case has been investigated. The employee will be advised of the nature of the complaint/ allegation against them and will be given the opportunity to state their case at a disciplinary hearing before any decision is made. An employee will have the right to appeal against any disciplinary sanction imposed.

[22]Paragraph 13.5 reads: The aim of Pre- Disciplinary counselling is to help the employee acknowledge, understand and adjust their behaviour to meet the standards expected by the Trust. Pre-Disciplinary counselling will include:• Explaining to the member of staff the cause for concern

• Identifying with the individual the cause of the failing

• Clarification or reinforcement or that the standards required and the consequences of not achieving them

• A discussion about any training and development or other support which has been put in place or needs to be put in place

• Setting out the way forward, with the responsibilities of the member of staff clearly identified or, if appropriate, the further guidance, training or support to be provided

• Agreeing the timescale over which the improvement must be achieved and/ or maintained and the monitoring arrangements during that time scale

[23]Paragraph 14.3.1: It is essential that investigations are carried out fairly, thoroughly and promptly before recollections fade and be concluded as quickly as possible. However, the process should be thorough and it is expected that in certain cases this may take time particularly where adult/ child safeguarding procedures and/ or the police and/ or local counter fraud services are involved. The employee should be kept informed of progress directly unless they specifically request that communication is directed through their representatives.

[24]The Tribunal notes that paragraph 1.3 of the Disciplinary Policy expressly states that it does not form part of an employee’s contract of employment, but the other policies relied on are silent on this.

[25]The Respondent’s Travel and Subsistence Policy is a 30-page document, paragraphs 6.4 and 10.1 are relied on.

[26]Paragraph 6.4 states: Managers are responsible for ensuring that policies and procedures are adhered to by their team. They are also responsible for checking that all submitted claims, from staff, are valid and are made in accordance with this policy before authorising payment.

[27]Paragraph 10.1 states: No travel claims will be paid without submission of an approved Authorised User Application Form (Appendix A). This needs to be completed by the user and authorised by the manager before Payroll can process a claim.

[28]The Respondent’s Recruitment, Selection and Checks Policy is a 61-page document, paragraph 14.2 of which states: Interview panel composition- non- medical Bands 1-4 Minimum 2 panel members (appointing manager plus one other from a different area of our Trust) Bands 5-6 Minimum 2 panel members (attendance of a person who uses our services or a carer is not compulsory, however one panel member should lead on these areas within the interview. One must be from another division/ directorate within our Trust) Bands 7 and above Minimum 3 panel members. If appropriate and relevant, a person who uses our services, (minimum of three panel members, one must be from another division/directorate within our Trust)

[29]The Respondent’s Data Protection and Records Management Policy is a 62- page document. Paragraphs 12 to 12.4 and 39.3.1 are relied on.

[30]Paragraph 12 to 12.4 states: 12.0 Data Protection Act (DPA) 2018:12.1 The purpose of the DPA 2018 and supporting data protection legislation (such as UK- GDPR) is to enhance, protect the rights and privacy of individuals, and to ensure that data about them cannot be processed without their knowledge or consent wherever possible.

12.2 The data protection legislation covers personal data relating to living individuals. However, the NHS guidance which states that, where possible the same level of confidentiality should be afforded to the records and information relating to a deceased person as applies to a living person.

12.3 The data protection legislation stipulates that any organisation processing personal data must comply with six principles of good practise. The legally enforceable principles are: 1. Processing of the personal data must be lawful and fair, 2. Processing of personal data must be specified, explicit and legitimate and not processed in a manner which is incompatible with the purpose for which it was collected, 3. Processing of personal data must be adequate, relevant and not excessive, 4. Processing must be accurate and kept up to date, 5. processing must not be kept for no longer than necessary for the purpose for which it is processed, 6. Processed in a manner that ensures appropriate security of the personal data, using appropriate technical or organisational measures. Refer to item 20.0 for details on data rights and the process for implementation.

12.4 An explanation of the six DPA principles can be found in appendix 3.

[31]Paragraph 39.3.1 states: It is an offence for an individual to alter, deface, block erase, destroy or conceal information with the intention of preventing disclosure of all or part of the information that the person making the request would have been entitled to.

[32]Paragraph 9.4.2 of the Respondent’s Acceptable Use of Information Technology and Internet Policy reads: Authorised users of Trust information assets are expected to follow the Trust Information Lifecycle (Records Management) Policy and NHS Code of Practice: Records Management in their use of those assets. Authorised users of the Trust IT network infrastructure must be aware the Trust may record anything viewed, created, stored, sent or received on any Trustowned IT network infrastructure. This extends to any attempt to view even if the view was unsuccessful. All email and internet usage will be monitored; this includes off-site internet usage on Trust-owned devices (e.g. Trust-owned device connected to home broadband used in working or personal time). All internet access and activity is logged. Monitoring information of authorised users’ activity may be released to support investigations under the Trusts disciplinary policy and to support any NHS Local Counter Fraud Services or legal investigations. The provided IT network infrastructure for the use of personal IT equipment and guest access to the internet will have technical controls implemented to reduce the likelihood of any inappropriate use and activity. The Trust reserves the right to challenge users of the provided IT network infrastructure if that use or activity is regarded as inappropriate and, if that is found to be the case, to request that user to cease from carrying out that activity or to cease their use of personal IT equipment and provided IT network Infrastructure whilst that user remains on Trust premises.

[33]According to Victoria Bishop, the Respondent’s Deputy Director of HR, the Respondent’s policies and procedures are non-contractual. Events in 2021

[34]The Claimant states that issues began to arise at work after he submitted a grievance on 23rd June 2021. The grievance complained that, unlike other employees, he was not paid overtime for working on a Windows 10 project. Although he describes this as whistleblowing, and refers to experiencing detriments in the claim form, during cross examination he confirmed that the term “whistleblowing” is not used in the context that would engage Part IVA or Part V of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

[35]Regarding his grievance, he states Mr Pelling was dismissive of the grievance, and escalated it to Mr Smiles, who rejected the Claimant’s request to be paid overtime, and instead the Claimant was offered unofficial leave. Dissatisfied with this proposal, the Claimant escalated his grievance to HR.

[36]As to HR dealing with the Claimant’s grievance, in a letter dated 14th December 2021 HR concluded the Claimant’s grievance as follows: The outcome of the hearing is that the panel recommend that you be paid 60 hours of TOIL at basic rate in recognition of the additional work undertaken to support colleagues with their digital issues during the pandemic.

[37]The Claimant states be believed that would be the end of the matter. However, although he was unaware at the time, he considers that Mr Pelling and Mr Smiles bore a grudge as a result of him raising the grievance. He only realised this after receiving disclosure in these proceedings of what he describes as an excessive volume of e-mails that the two of them exchanged about him, which he states is evidence that there were fixated with him.

[38]The e-mails exchanged included an e-mail sent by Mr Pelling to Mr Smile on 18th August 2022 which reads: Want to try and finish MR thing off now?

[39]The Claimant deals with the 18th August 2022 e-mail at paragraph 4 of his witness statement, which reads: A message exchanged between HP and DS on 19th August 2022 stated, “Want to try and finish MR thing off now?” This does not just suggest an intent to end my employment, but rather a coordinated effort to pre-prepare documentation and conclusions—well before they claimed any formal action had taken place. It reveals troubling signs of collusion between key figures in the process. (Page 1203). It’s evident the documentation was being drafted before the official timeline they later presented. Taken together, these statements reveal a coordinated effort behind the scenes. This really didn’t match the values of SABP which I followed, as per page 812 point 2.4 in SABP’s Disciplinary Policy “Employees are expected to behave in a manner that is conducive to good relations with the general public, their colleagues and managers.”

[40]Another e-mail sent by Mr Pelling on 12th October 2021 to Mr Smiles in which they discuss the claimant. The e-mail begins: “FFS”

[41]The Claimant deduces a grudge regarding the 2021 grievance is the real reason why Mr Pelling and Mr Smiles allegedly created a false narrative that ultimately led to his dismissal. His reasoning is that all other reasons the Respondent has given for initiating the investigation that led to his dismissal are baseless. Namely, whether he was at Theta House on 10th March 2022, him allegedly taking one hour to respond to a request from Mr Smiles in September 2022, and unofficial complaints from colleagues. He further states that the numerous e-mails the two managers exchanged illustrate they bore a grudge.

[42]Mr Yetman put to the Claimant during cross examination that the e-mail exchanges were routine management exchanges. The Claimant disagreed.

[43]Except for the 12th October 2021 e-mail, we consider the above e-mails and the others contained in the hearing bundle between Mr Pelling and Mr Smiles regarding the Claimant were routine management exchanges. We consider the e-mail sent on 18th August 2022 did not refer to finishing the Claimant off, as his evidence suggested. We take this to be a reference to finishing off something in relation to the Claimant because the e-mail expressly refers to finishing the “MR thing”.

[44]The exception is Mr Pelling’s e-mail sent on 12th October 2021. We do not consider opening an e-mail with the expression “FFS” is a routine management e-mail, not least because of the unprofessional tone. However, of the various e-mail exchanges in the bundle, this is the only one we consider problematic. Therefore, we consider it is more likely to be due to an unfortunate lapse in judgment rather than evidence of a grudge. Furthermore, on its own, but also when considered in the context of their other exchanges, we do not consider this e-mail demonstrates the degree of animus one would expect for Mr Pelling and Mr Smiles to collaborate in bringing about the Claimant’s dismissal.

[45]The Respondent denies there is any connection between the Claimant’s 2021 grievance and the investigation and disciplinary proceedings. Its case is that there were occasions when it was believed the Claimant was not where he said he would be, and it was these concerns that initiated the monitoring that took place.

[46]According to Mr Pelling’s investigatory interview with Mr Hockey, there were allegedly murmurings amongst team members that the Claimant was not where he said he was going to be. However, the individuals concerned were reluctant to make an official complaint so there is no written record of these reports. The Claimant disputes this, arguing there would be a written record of such complaints. Events in 2022

[47]Taking events in 2022 in broadly chronological order, the Respondent’s states an incident causing concern was that during a team meeting held via Microsoft Teams on 10 March 2022, the Claimant stated that he was working from Theta House. However, Mr Smiles did not believe he was there so asked Mr Pelling to go to Theta House to check whether the Claimant was there. Mr Pelling said he did not see the Claimant. However, he spoke to a manager at Theta House, Ms Ayling, who stated she had not seen the Claimant that day, nor had she seen him for around one week. Although Ms Ayling no longer works for the Respondent, she confirmed the conversation with Mr Pelling in an e-mail she sent on 30th January 2023.

[48]The Claimant argues he was at Theta House on that date and provides various reasons why Ms Ayling may not have seen him (for instance they performed different roles, and she worked across multiple sites). Therefore, the Claimant submits that this is not a legitimate basis to initiate monitoring him. He also questions the reliability of her recalling the conversation with Mr Pelling because of the time that elapsed before she sent the above e-mail.

[49]We find on the balance of probabilities that the Claimant was not at Theta House on 10th March 2022. That is because Mr Pelling states he could not find the Claimant when he went to Theta House. That is also consistent with what Ms Ayling told both Mr Pelling, and later when she e-mailed Mr Hockey. We note the Claimant questions her ability to recall that the March 2022 conversation. However, in our judgment, if she was unable to recall the conversation, that’s what she would have told Mr Hockey. We have no reason to doubt the accuracy of her e-mail.

[50]A copy of the Claimant’s July 2022 expenses claim form is in the bundle. It shows that the section requiring the cost centre to be added has not been completed. Nonetheless the Claimant’s July 2022 expenses were claimed.

[51]Having applied for a band 7 position of Network and Infrastructure Engineer, the Claimant was interviewed on 5th August 2022. However, the interview panel comprised only 2 interviewers, so it was not constituted in accordance with the Respondent’s Recruitment, Selection and Checks Policy, which states the panel should comprise 3 interviewers.

[52]His September 2022 expenses claim form is also in the bundle, which shows that Mr Pelling’s e-mail address was incorrect. The Claimant questions how his September 2022 expenses could be paid when Mr Pelling would not have received it because the e-mail address was incorrect.

[53]The Claimant raises these points because it’s part of his case that if there were concerns about his expense claims, the expenses should not have been authorised by Mr Pelling.

[54]As to monitoring the Claimant, according to Mr Pelling, due to other work commitments, it was time consuming to review data relating to the Claimant’s whereabouts, and complaints about the Claimant from team members quietening down, no action was taken at that time.

[55]However, on 12th September 2022, Mr Smiles asked the Claimant to deal with an IT issue, but the Claimant allegedly took around one hour to respond. The Claimant denies this, stating he responded within around 10 minutes, again raising this as an illegitimate basis to initiate any monitoring. It is now common ground that the Claimant did respond in around 10 minutes, and this was acknowledged by the appeal panel in Ms Paine’s letter to the Claimant dated 3rd November 2023.

[56]However, at the time, Mr Smiles was saying the Claimant had taken around one hour to respond, and this was a contributory factor in Mr Smiles and Mr Pelling reviewing and analysing the data for information regarding the Claimant’s whereabouts.

[57]From around 5th to 7th October 2022 Mr Smiles exchanged several e-mails with the Respondent’s HR about how to raise this issue with the Claimant. It is evident from these e-mails that Mr Smiles was aware of the Claimant’s acute physical health issues, although his mental health condition is not expressly referred to. Also, in an e-mail sent by Mr Smiles to Mr Pelling and various individuals in HR on 5th October 2022, Mr Smiles was in favour of suspending the Claimant during an investigation. This exchange shows that Mr Pelling and Ms Dowsett were also in favour of suspending the Claimant, but Ms Badmus was concerned about doing so.

[58]As to suspension, the Claimant states in his witness statement: The investigation has dragged on for eight months, during which I continued working without suspension. The stress has severely impacted my mental health

[59]As a result of the above e-mail exchange between Mr Smile and HR, it was agreed Mr Smiles and Mr Pelling’s concerns would first be raised with the Claimant at a meeting. That meeting took place on 26th October 2022 between the Claimant and Mr Pelling. Jennifer Evans, an HR adviser, took notes during the meeting. Mr Smiles did not attend because by then he had left the Respondent’s employment, his last day being 14th October 2022.

[60]Following the 26th October 2022 meeting, in a letter dated 5th December 2022 from Ms Dowsett, the Respondent’s Head of Enterprise Services, the Claimant is notified that the Respondent will be conducting an investigation into the following matters:• Any evidence of declaring on morning roll call to be working at a particular site but then not attending, on more than one occasion.

• Any evidence of working from home but claiming expenses for travelling to sites.

• Any evidence of not fulfilling contractual work hours due to an inordinate amount of device unlocks and inactivity throughout the day on the work laptop. The Investigation

[61]The Claimant was informed the investigation would be carried out by David Hockey. The letter acknowledges the Claimant would find the situation stressful, and offered access to the Employee Assistance Programme, explaining it provides confidential counselling. It concludes by providing contact details for Ms Evans, Lisa Whitlock, the Claimant’s Staff Liaison Officer, whose role is to provide support to employees not in a trade union, and Dennis Hockey, the investigation officer.

[62]Mr Hockey interviewed Mr Pelling on 15th December 2022.

[63]His first interview with the Claimant was on 18th January 2023. In addition to the Claimant and Mr Hockey, Ms Whitlock was also present. At the start of the meeting, Mr Hockey explained he had been provided with data indicating the Claimant had claimed mileage expenses on 10 occasions over a period covering 12th July 2022 to 2nd September 2022 when data he had been provided showed the Claimant’s work laptop was at home. Mr Hocky stated this indicated the Claimant had not travelled to the sites he had claimed expenses for. He provided the Claimant with a copy of the data, and explained he would like to go through it with the Claimant. The Claimant explained that on occasions he would visit sites, for instance in the afternoon, to deliver a computer that he had worked on at home. When visiting the site, he would not necessarily take his work laptop with him, so it would remain connected to his home WiFi. It was agreed the Claimant would review the data, check his records to see if he could explain his whereabouts, before they reconvened a further investigatory meeting.

[64]In the interim, Mr Hockey e-mailed Ms Ayling on 30th January 2023 regarding her discussion with Mr Pelling on 10th March 2022 at Theta House. She confirmed she recalled the discussion was as Mr Pelling had stated.

[65]Due to the Claimant being on sick leave from around 31st January 2023 until 1st March 2023, and Mr Hockey contracting COVID, the second interview did not take place until 23rd March 2023. Ms Whitlock again attended, in addition to the Claimant and Mr Hockey. The Claimant provided Google Maps data to show his whereabouts on 7 of the 10 days the Respondent was concerned about. He did not have Google Maps data for the remaining 3 days. The interview on 23rd March 2023 included a discussion about the Google Maps data, including some of the discrepancies in the data (see paragraph 119 below). Mr Hockey also asked the Claimant about his work laptop periodically unlocking, which required his login details to be entered, which the Claimant stated he had not shared with anyone.

[66]The Respondent arranged for an occupational health assessment, and the report following that assessment is dated 18th April 2023. It notes that the Claimant had been on sick leave, and it raised no concerns about him working during the investigation. The report concludes as follows (original emphasis): Specific Questions Are there any reasonable adjustments to the work, equipment or workplace that may help with the duties of their job?• In my opinion, Mr Robins is fit for work since beginning of March 2023 and has been coping well.

• I would advise that the management perform a stress risk assessment to help resolve the pending management issue. Please refer to the HSE website for guidance on the implementation of adjustments. https://www.hse.gov.uk/stress/standards/ I have not arranged any specific follow up for Mr Robins, but if the work or health situation changes significantly and you have any further concerns, please let us know.

[67]By a letter dated 11th July 2023 Ms Evans notified the Claimant that Ms Dowsett had decided the matter should progress to a disciplinary hearing, to be held on 9th August 2023. The letter stated the allegations were as follows: 1) Declaring at morning roll call to be working from SABP sites but laptop and phone not connecting to these sites. 2) Working from home but claiming travel expenses for travelling to SABP sites.

[68]Ms Dowsett’s letter continued, the allegations may amount to misconduct, namely a breach of the Respondent’s policies and procedures, and/or gross misconduct, as a flagrant breach of the Trust’s policies and procedures, and also falsification of financial claims. The Disciplinary Hearing

[69]At the disciplinary hearing on 9th August 2023, Ms Dowsett submitted an investigation report analysis, being the data from the Respondent’s Absolute software system and the Claimant’s Google Maps data, the copy submitted contained Ms Dowsett’s comments on the data. The Claimant complains about the lateness of this submission, pointing out the parties were told to submit any documents 5 days before the disciplinary meeting.

[70]A copy of the transcript of the disciplinary hearing is at pages 403 to 428 of the hearing bundle. It shows that notwithstanding the timing of Ms Dowsett’s submission, the Claimant did not request an adjournment in order to deal with it.

[71]The disciplinary hearing panel comprise Mr Jefferies as Chair, Richard Misters, Technical Services Manager, who acted as a professional adviser to the panel, and Karen Froy-Smith, HR Business Partner. Ms Dowsett presented the Respondent’s case, Mr Hockey and Mr Pelling gave evidence on behalf of the Respondent. The Claimant attended, supported by Ms Whitlock; Ms Whitlock questioned the witnesses; the Claimant also asked questions. Ms Dowsett and the Panel also questioned the Claimant. He was asked if he could explain discrepancies when the Absolute data showed he was in one place with Google Maps showing him elsewhere, he said he could not explain this.

[72]The Panel reviewed the Absolute data, which it considered was read-only, and it reviewed the Google Maps date which it considered could be edited retrospectively.

[73]The Panel observed some inconsistencies between the Absolute and Google Maps data. For instance on 1st August 2022, amongst a number of inconsistencies between the two data sources on this day, the Google Maps data shows the Claimant was driving home from Farnham Road Hospital between 4.21pm to 5.15pm. However, the Absolute data shows the Claimant’s laptop, connected to his home WiFi during this timeframe, with the computer being unlocked three times. Another example is on 16th August 2022 when Google Maps records the Claimant at Uinther from 11.10am to 1.30pm, then arriving at Frimley at 2.14pm, leaving at 5.06pm. Whereas the Absolute data shows his work laptop was logged into from home at 7.01am, with 22 unlocks during the day, until 5.16pm.

[74]The Claimant questions the Respondent’s claim that the Absolute data cannot be edited, because it is common ground that his name was added to the data. He also states that someone called Steve Watson accessed his laptop without consent. The Respondent’s reply to these points are that, firstly, the Absolute data could not be edited, and that position is not undermined by subsequently adding his name after the data had been downloaded. Secondly, there is no evidence that Mr Watson accessed the Claimant’s laptop, although it is accepted that Mr Watson had access to the data as part of the Respondent’s technical team. The Claimant’s position is that the Absolute data was unreliable, and the Google Maps data should be used instead. He maintains he has not edited or manipulated the data, arguing, if he wanted to do so he would have provided data for all 10 journeys being questioned by the Respondent.

[75]In addition to answering questions as a witness, during the disciplinary hearing Mr Pelling assisted the panel by explaining aspects of the Absolute data and providing demonstrations of how it worked. Consequently he was periodically recalled to the hearing to provide this assistance. The Claimant objected to this; he asks how could the Panel reach an impartial view when relying on Mr Pelling for advice. However, during the hearing, Mr Misters stated that, although the Panel had a reasonable working knowledge of the Absolute software system, it would be better to have Mr Pelling’s assistance because he was more familiar with the system.

[76]Mr Pelling was asked about authorising the Claimant’s expenses claims, which were now being challenged as inaccurate. Mr Pelling stated that checking each expenses claim would be time-consuming. So instead, he trusts employees to submit accurate claims, but also carries out spot-checks.

[77]During the hearing the Claimant stated he had been undergoing tests for suspected serious physical health problems at the time. He also provided evidence that there were work journeys he made for which he had not claimed expenses.

[78]Throughout the process, from the interview with Mr Hockey in early 2023, through to the disciplinary and appeal hearings, the Claimant consistently argued he has not consented to the Respondent using his data on the Absolute software system in the way it has done.

[79]The Claimant deals with this in his witness statement as follows: I’m deeply concerned that my personal data was accessed and shared without my consent, which I believe breaches GDPR. As well as the SABP Data Protection and Records Management Policy point 38.1, page 971. “• Unlawful disclosure of Personal Data and/or Sensitive Personal Data.• Inappropriate use of Personal Data and/or Sensitive Personal Data.

• Misuse of Personal Data and/or Sensitive Personal Data which results in any claim being made against our Trust.”

[80]The Respondent’s position is that it is permitted to use the data by paragraph 9.4.2 of its Acceptable Use of Information Technology and Internet Policy, which allows monitoring information an employee’s activity may be released to support disciplinary investigations.

[81]The disciplinary hearing was adjourned for the Panel to deliberate. During their deliberations, the Panel requested Ms Dowsett e-mails the investigation report analysis containing her comments (see paragraph 69 above). The Claimant was not copied in to that exchange. The Panel’s request is not in the bundle, but Ms Dowsett’s response is. It shows that she informed the panel that the comments were her own personal views, and she attached a copy of the investigation report analysis to her e-mail.

[82]The Panel’s conclusion, as set out in the dismissal letter dated 16th August 2023, was as follows: After carefully understanding the integrity of the Absolute data and Google Map data, the panel have been presented with overwhelming evidence that you declared on morning Roll Call to be working from SABP sites, but your laptop (or phone) was not connecting to those sites, it was at home. That this also culminated in you working from home but claiming expenses for travelling to sites, on the specified dates. The panel were satisfied that the Absolute data, not only had been used appropriately with the correct permissions, but that it accurately showed the connectivity of your laptop based on your home SSID. The data clearly shows you were at home unlocking your laptop, when travel claims had been submitted to state you were at SABP sites working. The panel heard evidence how Google Maps can be manipulated from editing / adding the route through “snap to road” functionality, (which we came across one example of this in the random checks we did at the hearing on the 19th August 2022). We also heard that there were a number of other ways that Google Maps could be manipulated including the date and time of your own phone / laptop being altered. We also came across a number of anomalies when we reviewed your Google Map data for e.g., 16th August 2022 the travel time is 2 hours 29 minutes to cover 19 miles. 19th August 2022 states the travel was 4 yards in 47 minutes and then 7.6miles in 12 hours 54 minutes. We were presented with evidence that your laptop was being unlocked at the times you state you were driving to SABP bases and /or that you were at home unlocking your laptop whilst Google Maps indicated that you were on site. The panel do not accept your explanation based on Google Maps, it is our view that the Absolute data accurately gives your activity of working from home and therefore you wrongfully claimed for expenses for traveling to sites, which is a flagrant and serious breach of the Trust Travel and Subsistence Policy and Procedure and other relevant policies. The Appeal against Dismissal

[83]In an e-mail sent on 30th August 2023, the Claimant appealed against his dismissal. The grounds, as set out in his e-mail read: 1 The decision was unduly harsh for making any ‘non-intentional human error’ mistakes on my expenses and not falsifying them in a fraudulent way from July -Sept 2022. 2 The Google Maps evidence I supplied was displayed to the panel on the day in a biased way, in favour of management allegations. 3 The data used (Absolute) to prove my laptop whereabouts does not reflect where I am. I believe it had been edited in a way that supported the management case. No consent is given by the users/staff for this information to be shared and the panel said they would check this out and we have had no response. 4 The panel did not reflect/take into consideration any of the overwhelming mitigating circumstances involved in my case that I provided.

[84]On 25th September 2023 the Claimant sent detailed submissions in support of the above grounds, and provided additional evidence for the appeal panel’s consideration.

[85]The appeal hearing took place on 25th October 2023. The Panel comprised Ms Paine, Natalie Wallace, the Respondent’s Associate Director of Financial Management, and Ms Bishop. Mr Robbins attended the appeal hearing, accompanied by Ms Whitlock. Mr Jefferies presented the management case, with evidence on behalf of the Respondent from Mr Pelling, and Louis Lau, the Respondent’s Information Governance and Information Security Manager.

[86]The Panel verified the accuracy of the Absolute data by testing it during the appeal hearing. The panel also checked, and were satisfied, that the Absolute data provided as part of the investigation was downloaded by Mr Pelling during a meeting with Mr Hockey, and that data was consistent with the data presented at the disciplinary hearing. Therefore, the panel concluded the Absolute data relied on had not been manipulated.

[87]The Panel accepted Mr Lau’s evidence that the Respondent’s policies permit monitoring its devices, also noting that each time an employee starts their laptop they confirm they agree to the User Notice, which includes agreeing to the Respondent’s policies and procedures.

[88]The Claimant argued that Mr Pelling and Mr Smiles were biased against him, although neither during the disciplinary or appeal hearing did he specifically claim his 2021 grievance played any part in the state of their relationship. The Panel acknowledged the Claimant found his working relationship with his managers to be difficult. But also noted Mr Smiles was no longer employed by the Respondent at the time of the process began, so he did not take part in the investigation or the disciplinary.

[89]In a letter from Ms Paine dated 3rd November 2023, the Respondent upheld the original decision to dismiss the Claimant. In summary, the appeal panel’s reasons were that they were satisfied with the accuracy of the Absolute data, which they preferred to the Google Maps data. They considered the Absolute data showed the Claimant’s work laptop was connected to his home WiFi on occasions when he claimed travel expenses for being elsewhere. It concluded that in light of this conduct, the disciplinary panel’s decision to dismiss him was appropriate. Accordingly, the disciplinary panel’s findings and sanction were upheld.

[90]It is against this background that the Claimant referred this matter to ACAS for early conciliation, and subsequently presented his claim to the Tribunal. THE LAW Unfair Dismissal

THE LAW

[91]Section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 gives employees the right not to be unfairly dismissed. Enforcement of the right is by way of complaint to an employment tribunal under section 111. The claimant must show that he was dismissed by the respondent under section 95.

[92]So far as is relevant, section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 states:(1) In determining for the purposes of this Part whether the dismissal of an employee is fair or unfair, it is for the employer to show- (a) the reason (or, if more than one, the principle reason) for the dismissal, and (b) that it is either a reason falling within subsection (2) or some other substantial reason of a kind such as to justify the dismissal of an employee holding the position which the employee held.

(2) A reason falls within this subsection if it- (a) … (b) relates to the conduct of the employee

[93]Section 98(4) deals with fairness generally and provides that the determination of the question whether the dismissal was fair or unfair, having regard to the reason shown by the employer, shall depend on whether in the circumstances (including the size and administrative resources of the employer’s undertaking) the employer acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating it as a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee; and shall be determined in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case.

[94]In misconduct dismissals, there is well-established guidance on fairness within section 98(4) in the decisions in Burchell

1978 IRLR 379

and Post Office v Foley

2000 IRLR 827

. The Tribunal must decide whether the employer had a genuine belief in the employee’s guilt. Then the Tribunal must decide whether the employer held such genuine belief on reasonable grounds and after carrying out a reasonable investigation. In all aspects of the case, including the investigation, the grounds for belief, the penalty imposed, and the procedure followed, the Tribunal must decide whether the employer acted within the band or range of reasonable responses open to an employer in the circumstances. It is immaterial how the Tribunal would have handled the events or what decision it would have made, and the Tribunal must not substitute its view for that of the reasonable employer (Iceland Frozen Foods Limited v Jones

1982 IRLR 439

, Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited v Hitt

2003 IRLR 23

, and London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Small

2009 IRLR 563

). The Duty to Make Reasonable Adjustments

[95]The Equality Act 2010 sets out the legislative provisions relevant to the complaints of discrimination and harassment in this case. An explanation of the Act’s provisions is contained in the Employment Statutory Code of Practice published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (the “Code”), which is a tool to assist tribunals when interpreting the law.

[96]Section 4 of the Act lists the protected characteristics covered by its provisions, which includes disability.

[97]Section 20 of the 2010 Act imposes the duty to make reasonable adjustments, the relevant part of which states the duty includes: “… a requirement, where a provision, criterion or practice of A’s puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage, in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons are not disabled, to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage.”

[98]Regarding what may amount to a reasonable adjustment, paragraph 6.23 of the Code states: The duty to make adjustments requires employers to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take, in all the circumstances of the case, in order to make adjustments. The Act does not specify any particular factors that should be taken into account. What is a reasonable step for an employer to take will depend on all the circumstances of each individual case.

[99]The failure to comply with the relevant requirements of the duty to make reasonable adjustments is unlawful under section 21 of the Act, which reads: “(1) A failure to comply with the … requirement is a failure to comply with a duty to make reasonable adjustments. (2) A discriminates against a disabled person if A fails to comply with that duty in relation to that person.” Breach of Contract

[100]By the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, Employment Tribunals have the power to deal with breach of contract claims where an employee brings a claim against their employer. It only applies to breaches of contract outstanding on the termination of employment.

[101]The Tribunal will need to assess whether an employer’s conduct amounts to breach of a term of the employee’s contract. CONCLUSIONS ON THE ISSUES

[102]We have applied the relevant law to the findings of fact that we have made in order to answer the questions raised by the list of issues. Our conclusions on those issues are set out below, with our reasons. Dismissal What was the reason or principal reason for dismissal

[103]The Respondent relied on the Claimant’s conduct as the reason for dismissal. According to the dismissal letter the relevant conduct comprised flagrant breaches of Trust policies and procedures, and falsification of financial claims, amounting to gross misconduct. The letter also referred to breach of Trust policies and procedures, amounting to misconduct.

[104]We find the Respondent has discharged the burden of proving that the reason or principal reason for the Claimant’s dismissal was because it found him to be in breach and in flagrant breach of its policies and procedures, and considered he had submitted falsified claims. We note that was the subject of the investigation meetings with Mr Hockey, and it was the focus of the subsequent disciplinary hearing, when considerable time was spent focusing on the Claimant’s whereabouts.

[105]It follows that we reject the Claimant’s contention that the real reason for his dismissal was a grudge held by Mr Pelling and Mr Smiles following a grievance he raised in 2021. We note Mr Smiles was no longer working for the Respondent at the time the investigation began, and he played no part in it. There is also no evidence to indicate, in either Mr Pelling’s interview with Mr Hockey on 15th December 2022, or his evidence to the disciplinary hearing on 9th August 2023, that he bore a grudge against the Claimant. Was it a potentially fair reason

[106]Misconduct is a potentially fair reason for dismissal under section 98(2)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. We therefore find that the reason or principal reason for the Claimant’s dismissal was potentially fair. Did the Respondent act reasonably in all the circumstances in treating this as sufficient reason to dismiss the Claimant.

[107]The Tribunal has no reason to disbelieve the Claimant when he states that he genuinely believed his expenses claims were accurate. However, we remind ourselves that in accordance with Burchell and Foley, what is relevant is whether the Respondent acted reasonably. It is immaterial whether or not we would have come to the same conclusion.

[108]Due to the serious nature of the allegations, we find that where proven, the alleged misconduct and gross misconduct, encompassing flagrant breaches of trust policy, and particularly the falsification of financial claims, could reasonably provide sufficient reason to justify dismissal. Furthermore, we consider that based on the evidence available, it was open to the Respondent to find the allegations against the Claimant were made out. Did the Respondent genuinely believe that the Claimant had committed misconduct.

[109]For the reasons stated above, we do not consider that the Claimant was dismissed because he raised a grievance in 2021. It follows, we do not consider the grievance was an underlying hidden reason for the Claimant’s dismissal.

[110]In any event, when considering whether the Respondent had a genuine belief that the Claimant was guilty of misconduct, it is the decision-maker's belief that is relevant. In this case, the decision maker at the disciplinary stage was Mr Jefferies, and on appeal, Ms Payne. Neither of them were involved in the Claimant’s grievance, nor had either had any prior involvement with the Claimant. The Claimant did not advance any reason why they might have an ulterior motive to dismiss him.

[111]It means that even if we are wrong, and Mr Pelling and/or Mr Smiles bore a grudge against the Claimant, that would not be directly relevant to whether the decision makers had a genuine belief in the Claimant’s guilt.

[112]The monitoring initiated by Mr Smiles and Mr Pelling resulted in the investigation and subsequently the disciplinary process. However, even if Mr Pelling and Mr Smiles had an ulterior motive, which we find they did not, the actual decision makers did not have those motives.

[113]Therefore, we find the decision makers, Mr Jefferies and Ms Paine, held a genuine belief that the Claimant was guilty of misconduct and gross misconduct. Were there reasonable grounds for the belief

[114]The decision makers were presented with conflicting data regarding the Claimant’s whereabouts from the Absolute software system and Google Maps.

[115]In summary, the Respondent preferred its Absolute data, which it maintains shows the Claimant claimed travel expenses to travel to sites at times when the Absolute data showed his laptop was being unlocked while connected to his home WiFi.

[116]Based on the information provided to the panel, they concluded that the Absolute raw data was read-only so could not be edited. Where it records that a device has been “unlocked” this means the relevant password has been entered. Similarly, logging in requires the relevant password to be entered.

[117]The panel was provided with information regarding the Claimant’s home IP addresses and the IP addresses at the Respondent’s sites, after considering the Absolute data, the panel concluded that on certain dates when the Claimant claimed expenses for travelling to sites, the Absolute data showed that his work laptop was connected to his home WiFi, and at times was being unlocked indicating the device was with the Claimant.

[118]In our judgment, based on the Absolute data that the panel relied on, we consider they had reasonable grounds for forming the belief that the Claimant had claimed travel expenses on occasions when the Absolute data showed his laptop was connected to his home WiFi, and the password had been entered to unlock the device, indicating the Claimant was at home. The Respondent maintains that even if the Claimant did not always take his work laptop with him when visiting a site, the occasions when he claimed for travel to a site but his laptop was connected to his home WiFi and the password had been entered, indicated he was with his laptop, because the Claimant stated he had not shared his password with anyone.

[119]We also consider the panel were entitled to prefer the Absolute data over the Google Maps data which the Claimant relied on. The panel’s reasons were that the Google Maps data could be edited, or manipulated, for instance by altering a device’s date and time settings. The panel also considered the Google Maps data was unreliable because they identified discrepancies in the data. For instance Google Maps recorded a 19-mile journey on 16th August 2022 took 2 hours and 29 minutes to complete, and on 19th August 2022 it recorded it took 47 minutes to travel 4 yards, and 12 hours and 54 minutes to travel 7.6 miles.

[120]The panel had to make a choice between the conflicting data, and they preferred the Absolute data. They have provided their reasons for concluding the Absolute data was reliable, because it could not be edited. They have explained why they considered the Google Maps data to be unreliable, because it can be edited. In the circumstances, their preference for the Absolute data was reasonable. Did they carry out a reasonable investigation

[121]In our judgment the Respondent carried out a reasonable investigation.

[122]As stated, we find that the investigation was initiated following concerns regarding the Claimant’s whereabouts based on Ms Ayling informing Mr Pelling in March 2022 that she had not seen the Claimant at Theta House for some time, and Mr Pelling being unable to find him when he visited. There were also unofficial reports from his colleagues. These resulted in the Claimant’s whereabouts being monitored, and ultimately led to the investigation and the disciplinary process.

[123]Another reason relied on for monitoring the Claimant was Mr Smiles’ allegation that the Claimant had taken around one hour to respond to a request on 10th September 2022. The Respondent now accepts that the Claimant responded to Mr Smiles’ request in a timely manner. Nonetheless, we do not consider that undermines the fairness of the process. The original trigger was the events in March 2022 at Theta House. Mr Pelling has explained the reason why monitoring did not begin at that time: reports seemed to quieten down and other work priorities meant monitoring was not carried out.

[124]However, irrespective of what triggered the monitoring and subsequent investigation, the fact that, when Mr Pelling reviewed the Absolute data he found evidence that warranted investigation, in our judgment is sufficient justification for carrying out an investigation. We note that, in itself, an investigation is not a disciplinary process.

[125]Having regard to all the circumstances, including the Respondent’s size and resources we consider the investigation was fair.

[126]There is no requirement to provide an employee with documentation regarding an investigation prior to an investigatory meeting. Mr Hockey’s letter to the Claimant dated 22nd December 2022 explained the areas that would be discussed during the meeting.

[127]The Respondent gathered evidence from both sides by conducting interviews with both Mr Pelling and the Claimant. In the Claimant’s case, he was first interviewed in January 2023 when Mr Hockey outlined the matter under investigation, including providing details of the dates being investigated. There was a further interview in March 2023 where the Claimant had an opportunity to put forward his evidence in the form of Google Maps data, and to further explain his position. Ms Whitlock, accompanied the Claimant to both interviews. We find this investigation was sufficiently thorough and was reasonable. Was the procedure fair.

[128]We find the Respondent’s procedure was fair. After the investigation, the Claimant was informed the matter would progress to a disciplinary hearing, he was informed of the allegations, and provided with the relevant documentation in advance of the disciplinary hearing. Ms Whitlock accompanied him at the disciplinary hearing. He had an opportunity to set out his case, and question the Respondent’s witnesses. The Chair of the disciplinary panel had no prior involvement with the Claimant.

[129]We note the Claimant criticises the panel’s reliance on Mr Pelling explaining the Absolute software to them even though Mr Misters was the panel’s technical adviser. However, we do not consider Mr Pelling’s explanations undermined the fairness of the process, because the panel’s conclusions are based on their own assessment of the evidence. Namely, they preferred the Absolute data over the Google Maps data for the reasons set out above. Those reasons included discrepancies in the Google Maps data which the Claimant was unable to explain, which was an assessment the panel could make without Mr Pelling’s input regarding the Absolute data.

[130]Although Ms Dowsett who presented the Respondent’s case, provided a late submission, we do not consider that resulted in any unfairness. The late submission amounted to a document previously provided to the Respondent on which she had added her own comments, which were relatively brief. Furthermore, neither the Claimant not Ms Whitlock requested an adjournment in order to consider the submission. Unusually, there was communication between Ms Dowsett and the panel while the latter was deliberating, but again, we do not consider that undermined the fairness of the process. We have seen Ms Dowsett’s e-mail to the panel, which attached the late submission referred to above. The text of her e-mail made clear that the comments represented her personal opinion. She did not seek to persuade the panel in anyway. We do not consider that limited contact makes the disciplinary process unfair.

[131]We also consider the appeal was conducted in a procedurally fair manner. The Chair of the appeal panel had no prior involvement with the Claimant. The Claimant was accompanied by Ms Whitlock at the appeal hearing, and had an opportunity to present the appeal. The panel reviewed the evidence, and took steps to satisfy themselves regarding the accuracy of the Absolute data, and as to whether the data had been used in accordance with the Respondent’s policies. It reached a decision which was supported by reasons given which were based on the evidence presented, and which addressed the Claimant’s grounds of appeal. Was the decision within the band of reasonable responses

[132]In light of the findings of gross misconduct, which included a finding that false expenses claims had been submitted, we consider dismissal was in the band of reasonable responses. Time Limits – Equality Act 2010 Were the complaints made within the time limit in section 123 of the Equality Act 2010?

[133]The Tribunal must determine whether the complaints were presented within the time limit prescribed by section 123 of the Equality Act 2010, namely within three months (plus early conciliation extension) of the act to which the complaint relates.

[134]In relation to the Claimant’s employment, disciplinary, and appeal process, and in accordance with the list of issues, the complaints relied upon cover the period from October 2022 to November 2023. The claim form was presented on 12th January 2024. The Respondent contends that, allowing for early conciliation, any acts relied on prior to 8th August 2023 fall outside the time limit. Therefore, on the respondent’s case, any complaints between October 2022 to 7th August 2023 are outside the time limit.

[135]Having heard no argument from the Claimant to the contrary, we accept that, allowing for the early conciliation extension, any specific (or isolated) acts occurring prior to 8th August 2023 would fall outside the time limit at section 123(1)(a). If not, was there conduct extending over a period?

[136]Having regard to the substance of the complaints concerning the alleged failure to make reasonable adjustments, we consider that the acts complained of amount to conduct extending over a period.

[137]The Claimant’s case is that the Respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments both prior to, and during, the disciplinary process, which culminated in his dismissal. The list of issues identifies as a potential reasonable adjustment the failure to suspend the Claimant during the disciplinary process. The Claimant’s further and better particulars also refer to a failure to offer Pre-Disciplinary counselling, which was pleaded as part of the unfair dismissal claim, but was also relied upon at the final hearing as a failure to make reasonable adjustments.

[138]On any analysis, the Claimant’s case is that, prior to, and throughout the disciplinary process, whether by failing to suspend him or by failing to offer Pre-Disciplinary Counselling, the Respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate his disability. In other words, the alleged failure extended over the period from October 2022 until at least his dismissal on 9th August 2023. If so, was the claim made to the Tribunal within three months (plus early conciliation extension) of the end of that period?

[139]Accordingly, as the end of the period over which the conduct extended occurred after 8th August 2023. We therefore find that the claim was presented within the time limit prescribed by section 123(3). If not, were the claims made within a further period that the Tribunal thinks is just and equitable?

[140]In light of our finding that the claim was presented within the time limit prescribed by section 123(3), it is not necessary to determine whether it would be just and equitable to extend time. Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments Did the Claimant have a disability as defined by section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the time of the events the claim is about between October 2022 and November 2023. Did the Claimant have a physical or mental impairment?

[141]The Claimant relies on mental impairments of depression and anxiety.

[142]We find that the Claimant did have a mental impairment during the period relevant to this claim, that is between October 2022 and November 2023. We accept the unchallenged contents of the Claimant’s disability impact statement, which records that he has experienced periodic anxiety since 1997, and depression since 2010. These conditions are also addressed in his witness statement. Did it have a substantial adverse effect on the Claimant’s ability to carry out day-today activities

[143]We accept that the Claimant’s mental health deteriorated from 2021 onwards, and that his medication was increased during this period. We also accept his unchallenged evidence that during the relevant period his symptoms included poor sleep and difficulties in his relationships arising from a lack of trust.

[144]We find that sleeping is a day-to-day activity, as is forming and maintaining relationships. We note that the Claimant’s sleeping difficulties were sufficiently serious for him to be prescribed medication. During part of the relevant period the Claimant was also certified as unfit for work, and working is likewise a day-to-day activity. Accordingly, we find that the Claimant’s mental impairment had a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out day-to-day activities.

[145]In addition, we note that the Claimant’s GP records show that during this period he was being treated by his GP for physical and mental health conditions. In August 2022, shortly before the relevant period, he was prescribed Fluoxetine 20mg. On 27th January 2023, he reported constant anxiety affecting his sleep and was prescribed Propranolol, in addition to an increased dosage of Fluoxetine at 40mg. By 28th November 2023, while the Propranolol dosage had reduced, the Fluoxetine dosage had increased to 60mg.

[146]Being prescribed medication in increasing dosages leads us to conclude that the effect of the Claimant’s impairment on his ability to carry out day-to-day activities was substantial and adverse. If not, did the Claimant have medical treatment including medication, or take other measures to treat or correct the impairment

[147]In light of our finding that the Claimant’s impairment had a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out day-to-day activities, it is not necessary to determine this issue. If so would the impairment have had a substantial adverse effect on the Claimant’ ability to carry out day-to-day activities without the treatment

[148]In light of our conclusion at paragraphs 143 to 147 above, this issue does not require determination. Were the effects of the impairment long term. Did they last for at least 12 months.

[149]The Claimant was diagnosed with anxiety in 1997 and depression in 2010. He was being prescribed medication at the relevant time, with dosages increased during the relevant period. Therefore, we find the Claimant’s mental impairment was long term. Did the Respondent know or could it reasonably have been expected to know that the Claimant had the disability. From what date.

[150]We find that the Respondent did or ought reasonably to have known that the Claimant was disabled between October 2022 to November 2023.

[151]Although approximately 9 to 10 years have elapsed since the Claimant joined the Respondent as a volunteer, we have not been provided with any evidence that would reasonably have led the Respondent to conclude that the disability of which it was or ought to have been aware of since 2013, was no longer relevant. We find it ought to have known about the disability because the Claimant was supported by a mental health charity when he began as a volunteer.

[152]The Claimant was supported by a mental health charity when he began volunteering, and he informed the Respondent he had a disability when appointed to his paid role. In the absence of any grounds to conclude that the Claimant was no longer disabled, the Respondent knew or ought reasonably to have known he remained disabled. Did the Respondent have the following PCPs

[153]Three PCPs are relied upon by the Claimant. All are contained within the Respondent’s written Disciplinary Policy and are addressed individually below.

[154]First, the Claimant relies on the PCP at paragraph 2.5 of the Respondent’s Disciplinary Policy. We are satisfied that the Respondent has this PCP because its provisions are quoted at paragraph 19 above.

[155]Secondly, the Claimant relies on the PCP at paragraph 13.5 of the Respondent’s Disciplinary Policy. We are satisfied that the Respondent has this PCP because its provisions are quoted at paragraph 22 above.

[156]Thirdly, the Claimant relies on the PCP at paragraph 14.3.1 of the Respondent’ Disciplinary Policy. We are also satisfied that the Respondent has this PCP because its provisions are quoted at paragraph 23 above. Did paragraph 2.5 of the Respondent’s Disciplinary Policy put the Claimant at a respect of paragraph 2.5, did the Respondent breach this by failing to arrange PreDisciplinary Counselling on 14th December 2022.

[157]We have first considered whether paragraph 2.5 of the Respondent’s Disciplinary Policy put the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage compared to someone without the Claimant’s disability.

[158]Paragraph 2.5 acknowledges that it is unlawful to discriminate against an employee on the grounds of a protected characteristic. We do not consider that this provision put the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage. The provision merely reflects the law. Further, the underlying principle, that discrimination is unlawful, does not amount to a disadvantage. On the contrary, it protects individuals, including the Claimant, from discrimination on the basis of a protected characteristic, in this case disability.

[159]In the circumstances, the Respondent could not know nor reasonably be expected to know, that the Claimant was likely to be put at a substantial disadvantage, because we have found that he was not so disadvantaged.

[160]Although this issue relates to the Claimant’s Equality Act claim, the Tribunal was also asked to consider the assertion that the Respondent breached paragraph 2.5 by failing to arrange pre-disciplinary counselling on 14th December 2022. We do not consider that assertion is made out. Although the Respondent did not offer Pre-Disciplinary Counselling, we do not consider that this amounted to a failure to make a reasonable adjustment for the reasons set out at paragraphs 162 to 168 below.

[161]In any event, the relevant legal question is whether the application of paragraph 2.5 would put the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage. It is not whether paragraph 2.5, or any other provision of the Disciplinary Policy was breached. Accordingly, even if paragraph 2.5 had been breached, on its own, that would not establish that the Claimant was put at a substantial disadvantage. Did paragraph 13.5 of the Respondent’s Disciplinary Policy put the Claimant at a respect of paragraph 13.5, did the Respondent breach this by failing to arrange PreDisciplinary Counselling on 14th December 2022.

[162]We have considered whether paragraph 13.5 of the Disciplinary Policy put the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage compared to someone without the Claimant’s disability. The purpose of this provision is to offer PreDisciplinary Counselling to assist an employee modify their behaviour in cases involving low level conduct issues, by providing advice, clarification, training, and clearly identified requirements to enable the employee to meet the required standard.

[163]The Claimant's disability meant that counselling could have reduced disadvantage. However, the Respondent submits that offering PreDisciplinary Counselling would not have been a reasonable adjustment because it is intended to address low level capability and/or conduct issues with a view to enabling an employee to continue in employment. It is not intended to apply where allegations are of the seriousness faced by the Claimant in this case.

[164]Having found that the Claimant was disabled as a result of anxiety and depression, we consider that the failure to expand (or adjust) paragraph 13.5 of the Disciplinary Policy to apply in cases where more serious allegations have been made, did put the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage. The support that would otherwise have been available through Pre-Disciplinary counselling, was not offered. We also find that the Respondent knew, or could reasonably have been expected to know, that in light of the Claimant’s mental health condition, he was likely to be placed at a substantial disadvantage if Pre-Disciplinary Counselling was not offered.

[165]In our judgment, it would not have been a reasonable adjustment to have extended paragraph 13.5 to the Claimant’s circumstances. The nature of the allegations, particularly, the allegation of falsification of financial claims, was such that dismissal would not, in principle, be an unreasonable outcome. Even if Pre-Disciplinary counselling had been offered, and even it had resulted in a change in behaviour, it would still have been open to the Respondent to consider dismissal. In other words, it was open to the Respondent to consider that falsification of financial claims was an irremediable breach. Therefore, it was not unreasonable to refuse to adjust paragraph 13.5 so as to offer Pre-Disciplinary Counselling in this case involving more serious allegations.

[166]In considering reasonableness of the proposed adjustment, we have also taken into account the broader context. The Respondent informed the Claimant of other support available to him, including counselling through its Employee Assistance Programme, and the Claimant made use of this counselling service. Accordingly, although Pre-Disciplinary Counselling was not offered, alternative counselling was available and accepted by him.

[167]If, contrary to our decision, it would have been reasonable to adjust paragraph 13.5 to include the more serious allegations made against the Claimant, in our judgment that would have made no difference because the seriousness of the breach makes it likely that the Claimant would have been dismissed in any event.

[168]Whether not offering Pre-Disciplinary Counselling amounts to a breach of contract is dealt with at paragraph 193 below. Did paragraph 14.3.1 of the Respondent’s Disciplinary Policy put the Claimant at a respect of paragraph 14.3.1, did the Respondent breach this by failing to comply with the safeguarding provisions therein

[169]This provision requires investigations to be conducted fairly, thoroughly and promptly, and to be concluded as soon as possible, while recognising the need to balance thoroughness and timeliness, particularly in cases involving safeguarding, the police and/or local counter fraud services. It also requires employees to be kept informed.

[170]We do not consider that this provision put the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage. Its purpose is to minimise so far as possible, the stress associated with disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, if it applied, this provision would benefit the Claimant, rather than put him at a disadvantage, when compared to someone without his disability.

[171]Further, the reference to safeguarding in paragraph 14.3.1 concerns allegations involving conduct that jeopardises the safeguarding of others. It does not relate to safeguarding the individual who is the subject of disciplinary proceedings. Accordingly, paragraph 14.3.1 does not apply in the manner contended for by the Claimant.

[172]In those circumstances, the Respondent could not know, nor reasonably be expected to know, that the Claimant was likely to be put at a substantial disadvantage. The Respondent was therefore under no duty to take steps to avoid such disadvantage in relation to paragraph 14.3.1.

[173]Although this issue relates to the Claimant’s Equality Act claim, the Tribunal was also asked to consider the assertion that the Respondent breached paragraph 14.3.1 of the Respondent’s Disciplinary Policy by failing to comply with its safeguarding provisions between 14th December 2022 to 3rd November 2023. We do not consider that assertion is made out. Because paragraph 14.3.1 does not apply in the Claimant’s case, the failure to follow this provision does not amount to a breach of contract.

[174]In any event, as with paragraph 2.5, the relevant legal question is whether the application of paragraph 14.3.1 would put the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage. Even if the provision had been breached, its application would not have placed the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage. Did the Respondent fail in its duty to take such steps as it would have been reasonable to have taken to avoid the disadvantage? The Claimant says that not being required to work whilst the investigation was ongoing would have been a reasonable adjustment to the PCP.

[175]The Claimant contends that a reasonable adjustment would have been for him not to be required to work while the investigation was ongoing.

[176]The Tribunal is unable to identify a clear connection between the PCPs relied upon by the Claimant, and the reasonable adjustment being sought. Namely, that he should not have been required to work during the investigation. Nor were we referred to any PCPs operated by the Respondent that addresses whether an employee is to be suspended during an investigation into their conduct.

[177]In any event, we consider that the Respondent’s decision to allow the Claimant to continue working during the investigation was reasonable.

[178]This was a matter that the Respondent considered, as is evident from the emails Mr Smiles exchanged with HR in October 2022. Ultimately, Mr Smiles followed HR’s advice not to suspend the Claimant, and it was reasonable for him to do so. Further, the occupational health assessment dated 18th April 2023, while noting that the Claimant had been on sick leave from 31st January 2023 until 1st March 2023, raised no concerns about him continuing to work during the investigation.

[179]As we have not been referred to any PCP specifically governing suspension during an investigation, we note that the Respondent followed the advice it received from HR and occupational health. Beyond that, we are unable to make any further valuative findings the Respondent’s decision not to suspend the Claimant. Time Limits – Breach of Contract Were the alleged acts of breach of contract made within the time limit in Article 7(a) –

(b) of the Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994? Was the claim made to the Tribunal within three months (allowing for any early conciliation extension) of the effective date of termination.

[180]The Respondent’s unchallenged position is that any event relied upon that occurred prior to 8th August 2023 falls outside the statutory time limit, taking into account the extension for early conciliation. As the effective date of termination was 9th August 2023, it follows, that even on the Respondent’s case, the Claimant’s breach of contract claim was presented within the statutory time limit. Did this claim arise or was it outstanding when the Claimant’s employment ended?

[181]It is common ground that the breach of contract claim was outstanding at the time the Claimant’s employment ended. Did the Respondent fail to follow paragraph 2.4 of the Disciplinary Policy

[182]Paragraph 2.4 requires employees to behave in a manner conducive to good relations with employees. The Claimant complains about the behaviour of Mr Pelling and Mr Smiles, asserting that they bore a grudge against him following his 2021 grievance. He states that although the grievance was resolved, disclosure during these proceedings revealed emails they exchanged between them about him.

[183]In our judgment, their behaviour was broadly consistent with the expected behaviour of managers, which includes behaving in a manner conducive to good relations. While the Claimant found his working relationship with them difficult at times, that alone does not establish that good were undermined.

[184]For instance, the Claimant’s initial 2021 complaint regarding unpaid overtime was upheld by HR, does not indicate Mr Smiles undermined good relations by dismissing the Claimant’s grievance. It simply reflects a difference of view regarding resolution. Similarly, Mr Smiles and Mr Pelling exchanging e-mails about the location of the Claimant’s laptop, and subsequently monitoring the whereabouts of his laptop, fell within the remit of their managerial responsibility, and was not of itself conduct that undermined good relations.

[185]The only potential exception is Mr Pelling’s 18th August 2022 e-mail which began with “FFS”. While this demonstrated a lapse in judgment, we do not consider that it necessarily undermined good relations. The Claimant was unaware of the e-mail, believing the 2021 grievance had achieved closure, and therefore had no reason to view Mr Pelling’s conduct as anything other than profession until he later saw the e-mail. Did the Respondent fail to follow paragraph 2.5 of the Disciplinary Policy

[186]We find the Respondent did follow the provisions at paragraph 2.5 which prohibited unlawfully discriminating against an employee.

[187]The discrimination alleged is a failure to make reasonable adjustments. As we have found that that reasonable adjustments claim is not is made out, it follows that the Respondent did not act in breach of paragraph 2.5 by discriminating against the Claimant. Did the Respondent fail to follow paragraph 8.4 of the Disciplinary Policy

[188]Paragraph 8.4 requires the Respondent to provide timely, honest and relevant feedback during the disciplinary process.

[189]We find that the Respondent complied with paragraph 8.4. The Claimant was kept informed of each stage of the process, including: from the factfinding meeting with Mr Pelling; referral by Ms Dowsett for investigation by Ms Dowsett; contact from Mr Hockey to arrange the investigation interviews; attendance at the interviews; referral to a disciplinary hearing; and notification of the outcome.

[190]Although the process took approximately 8 months, we do not consider this excessive given the seriousness of the allegations, the need to have two investigation meetings with the Claimant, and the delay caused by the Claimant being on sick leave and Mr Hockey contracted COVID. The updates provided accurately informed the Claimant of the next procedural steps. Accordingly, we find paragraph 8.4 was complied with. Did the Respondent fail to follow paragraph 12.7 of the Disciplinary Policy

[191]There was an investigation, during which the Claimant was interviewed twice, and Mr Pelling was also interviewed. As we have already found that the investigation was fair, we conclude that paragraph 12.7 was complied with. Did the Respondent fail to follow paragraphs 13.5 of the Disciplinary Policy

[192]We have found that the Claimant was not offered Pre-Disciplinary Counselling. However we have also found that this provision does not apply where an employee faces serious allegations of the kind in the present case. Therefore, not offering such counselling does not amount to a breach of contract because paragraph 13.5 is not engaged. Did the Respondent fail to follow paragraph 14.3.1 of the Disciplinary Policy

[193]We have already found that paragraph 14.3.1 does not apply in this case (see paragraph 172 above). It follows that the Respondent could not be in breach of a provision does not apply. Did the Respondent fail to follow paragraph 6.4 of the Travel and Subsistence Policy

[194]Paragraph 6.4 requires managers to check all expenses claims before submission.

[195]Mr Pelling accepted that he did not check all claims, instead he carried out spot checks because checking all claims was too time consuming, and instead he carries out spot checks. In our judgment, paragraph 6.4 requires all expenses claims are checked. Accordingly, Mr Pelling’s failure to do so amounted to a breach of paragraph 6.4. However, we also accept that the individual making the claim has a responsibility to ensure the accuracy of the claim. Did the Respondent fail to follow paragraph 10.1 of the Travel and Subsistence Policy

[196]Paragraph 10.1 states that expenses will not be paid unless the relevant form is completed by the employee and authorised by the manager.

[197]The Claimant has identified issues with his July 2022 and September 2022 expenses claim forms (see paragraphs 50 and 52 above). However, paragraph 10.1 does not expressly state that each and every section of the expenses form must be completed before the claim will be paid. As all other relevant sections of the expenses form were completed, we consider that is sufficient to comply with paragraph 10.1.

[198]Although Mr Pelling’s e-mail address was entered incorrectly on the September 2022 expenses claim form, the Claimant confirmed that the expenses were paid. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we consider it more likely than not that the form was sent to Mr Pelling using the correct e-mail address at, even if an incorrect e-mail address was entered on the form. Accordingly, paragraph 10.1 was complied with. Did the Respondent fail to follow paragraph 14.2 of the Recruitment, Selection and Checks Policy

[199]The Claimant’s unchallenged evidence is that his interview for the band 7 role involved only two panel members. However, paragraph 14.2 requires a minimum of 3 panel members. Therefore, we find this provision has not been followed. Did the Respondent fail to follow Paragraphs 12 to 12.4 of the Data Protection and Records Management Policy.

[200]Paragraphs 12 to 12.4 require personal data to be processed lawfully, in accordance with the Data Protection Act 2018 and GDPR. The Claimant’s concern is that he did not consent to the use of his personal data.

[201]The Respondent submits that the Claimant’s data lawfully. In particular, it states that each time the Claimant started his work laptop he confirmed he agreed to the User Notice, including agreeing to the Respondent’s policies and procedures. The Respondent maintains that its use of the Claimant’s personal data was in accordance with paragraph 9.4.2 of its Acceptable Use of Information Technology and Internet Policy, which allows the Respondent to monitor employees for the purposes of disciplinary investigations.

[202]Taking into account paragraph 9.4.2 of its Acceptable Use of Information Technology and Internet Policy, we find that the Claimant has given consent by agreeing to the user notice. Accordingly, we consider the Respondent has complied with GDPR and the 2018 Act, and therefore it has also not breached paragraphs 12 to 12.4. Did the Respondent fail to follow paragraph 39.3.1 of the Data Protection and Records Management Policy

[203]Paragraph 39.3.1 states that it is an offence to alter, deface, block, erase, destroy or conceal information with the intention of preventing disclosure. We find the Respondent has complied with this provision. Although the Claimant has alleged that the data relied on by the Respondent has been altered or falsely edited, we have not been provided with any credible evidence that there has been an intention to prevent disclosure. For instance, to the extent that this provision may apply to the Absolute data, we do not consider adding the Claimant’s name after the data was downloaded amounts to a breach of this provision. Adding the Claimant’s name was done so that the relevant data could be identified, which data was disclosed to him. Therefore, we do not consider the intention was to prevent disclosure. Whether the Respondent’s policies and procedures are contractual

[204]The Respondent submits that the policies relied upon are not contractual, and, in any event were not breached.

[205]The Disciplinary Policy expressly states that it is non-contractual. The other policies are silent on this point, and the Claimant’s contract of employment also does not expressly incorporate them.

[206]Although it is unclear why one policy expressly disclaims contractual force, while the others do not, we find that none of the policies relied upon are contractual. Our reasons are:206.1 The Claimant’s contract of employment does not incorporate any policies into its terms and conditions.

206.2 The Claimant has not advanced evidence to support the proposition that the policies are incorporated into his contract.

206.3 Mr Jefferies’ witness statement states he was advised by Ms Bishop, the Deputy Director of HR, that the policies are noncontractual, and we have no reason to doubt that evidence.

206.4 The policies relied upon by the Claimant as part of these proceedings comprise approximately 227 pages, making it unlikely that quantity of documentation is intended to form part of the terms and conditions of the Claimant’s employment.

[207]The Claimant advanced no evidence or argument to support the proposition that the policies and procedures relied on were contractual.

[208]It follows that, irrespective of whether the Respondent has complied with its policies and procedures, any failure to do so, would not amount to a breach of contract because these do not have contractual force.

Conclusion

[209]For the reasons above, all claims are dismissed. Approved by: Employment Judge Tueje Date: 18 December 2025 Date: 8 January 2026 . APPENDIX LIST OF ISSUES TIME LIMITS1.1 Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the Claimant’s breach of contract claim in accordance with Article 3 and 7(a)-(b), Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994?

1.2 Were the alleged acts of disability discrimination (a failure to make reasonable adjustments) made within the time limit in section 123 of the Equality Act 2010? The Tribunal will decide:1.2.1 Was the claim made to the Tribunal within three months (allowing for any early conciliation extension) of the act to which the complaint relates?

1.2.2 If not, was there conduct extending over a period?

1.2.3 If so, was the claim made to the Tribunal within three months (allowing for any early conciliation extension) of the end of that period?

1.2.4 If not, were the claims made within such further period as the Tribunal thinks is just and equitable? The Tribunal will decide:

(a) Why were the complaints not made to the Tribunal in time?

(b) In any event, is it just and equitable in all the circumstances to extend time?

1.3 Were the alleged acts of breach of contract made within the time limit in Article 7 (a) – (b) of the Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994? The Tribunal will decide:1.3.1 Was the claim made to the Tribunal within three months (allowing for any early conciliation extension) of the effective date of termination?

1.3.2 If not, was it reasonably practicable for the claim to be made to the Tribunal within the time limit?

1.3.3 If it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to be made to the Tribunal within the time limit, was it made within such further period as the Tribunal considers reasonable? UNFAIR DISMISSAL Dismissal Reason

2.1 Has the respondent shown the reason or principal reason for dismissal? The Respondent relies on the Claimant’s conduct as the reason for dismissal.

2.2 Was it a potentially fair reason under section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996? Fairness

2.3 If so, applying the test of fairness in section 98(4), did the Respondent act reasonably in all the circumstances in treating that reason as sufficient reason to dismiss the Claimant?

2.4 If the reason was misconduct, did the Respondent act reasonably in all the circumstances in treating that as a sufficient reason to dismiss the Claimant? The Tribunal will usually decide, in particular, whether:2.4.1 the Respondent genuinely believed the Claimant had committed misconduct;

2.4.2 there were reasonable grounds for that belief;

2.4.3 at the time the belief was formed the Respondent had carried out a reasonable investigation;

2.4.4 the Respondent followed a reasonably fair procedure;

2.4.5 dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses. REMEDY FOR UNFAIR DISMISSAL 3.1 … DISABILITY 4.1 Did the Claimant have a disability as defined in section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the time of the events the claim is about between October 2022 and November 2023? The Tribunal will decide:

4.1.1 Did the Claimant have a physical or mental impairment? The Claimant relies on the mental impairments of depression and anxiety.

4.1.2 Did it have a substantial adverse effect on their ability to carry out dayto-day activities?

4.1.3 If not, did the Claimant have medical treatment, including medication, or take other measures to treat or correct the impairment?

4.1.4 If so, would the impairment have had a substantial adverse effect on their ability to carry out day-to-day activities without the treatment or other measures?

4.1.5 Were the effects of the impairment long-term? The Tribunal will decide: (a) did they last at least 12 months, or were they likely to last at least 12 months? (b) if not, were they likely to recur? REASONABLE ADJUSTMENTS (EQUALITY ACT 2010 SECTIONS 20 & 21)

5.1 Did the Respondent know or could it reasonably have been expected to know that the Claimant had the disability? From what date?

5.2 A “PCP” is a provision, criterion or practice. Did the Respondent have the following PCP:5.2.1 Paragraphs

5.2.2 Paragraph 14.3.1 of the Respondent’s Disciplinary Policy.

2.5 and 13.5 of the Respondent’s Disciplinary Policy; and

5.3 Did the PCPs put the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage compared to someone without the Claimant’s disability, in that:5.3.1 In respect to paragraphs 2.5 and 13.5 of the Respondent’s Disciplinary Policy, in breach of these policies, the Respondent failed to arrange pre-disciplinary counselling on 14 December 2022; and

5.3.2 In respect to paragraph 14.3.1 of the Respondent’s Disciplinary Policy, the Respondent failed to comply with the safeguarding provisions therein from 14 December 2022 to 3 November 2023.

5.4 Did the Respondent know or could it reasonably have been expected to know that the Claimant was likely to be placed at the substantial disadvantage?

5.5 Did the Respondent fail in its duty to take such steps as it would have been reasonable to have taken to avoid the disadvantage? The Claimant says that the following adjustments to the PCP would have been reasonable: 5.5.1 Not being required to work whilst the investigation was ongoing.

5.6 By what date should the Respondent reasonably have taken those steps? REMEDY FOR DISCRIMINATION 6.1 …. BREACH OF CONTRACT

7.1 Did this claim arise or was it outstanding when the Claimant’s employment ended?

7.2 Did the Respondent do the following: 7.2.1 Not follow the below sections of the Respondent’s policies and procedures: (a) Paragraphs 2.4, 2.5, 8.4, 12.7, 13.5, 14.3.1 of the Disciplinary Policy; (b) Paragraphs 6.4 and 10.1 of the Travel and Subsistence Policy;

(d) Paragraphs 12 to 12.4 and 39.3.1 of the Data Protection and Records Management Policy.

7.3 Was that a breach of contract?

7.4 How much should the Claimant be awarded as damages?