The Claimant was a police officer recognised as disabled by the PSNI and carrying out adjusted duties in the Telephone Resolution Unit. When 999 and 101 call handler staff numbers were impacted by industrial action the Claimant was asked to carry out this role to cover the strike days. It was acknowledged that the Claimant did not have the training normally required to conduct the role, but that given the unusual circumstances, a senior officer would be taking full responsibility for any shortcomings within the service arising from this lack of training.
The tribunal was not satisfied that the Claimant’s new duties undermined or compromised the reasonable adjustments that had been made for him.
It also found that he had been given “cast-iron assurances” that the risk would be borne by the chain of command and not him. 
The tribunal concluded that what at the outset might reasonably have been the Claimant seeking legitimate reassurance about the limits of his responsibilities descended into a stand-off between him and his superiors, which he had no intention to resolve. The tribunal found it was more likely to be a “personal unwillingness to perform the…role than a genuine and legitimate concern for his disability.” 
The tribunal heard evidence from a covert recording made by the Claimant but could not dispel the “clear possibility of concoction by the claimant of the recorded ‘sound effects’ of his apparent distress…and concluded…they were more likely than not manufactured by him for the purpose of the recording. “
The tribunal found at  that what was being asked of the Claimant was reasonably assessed to be within his range of skills. The change to the Claimant’s role was carefully considered in all the circumstances and was not motivated by his disability. It further found that there had been no victimisation or harassment of the Claimant. His claims were dismissed in their entirety.