|
Crisp v Iceland Foods Ltd ET/1604478/11 &
ET/1600000/12
Date added: 13 June 2012
disability discrimination | unfair dismissal | mental health |
recommendations
This is a rare example, along with Stone v Ramsay Health Care UK Operations
Ltd ET/1400762/11, of an employment tribunal making wide-ranging
recommendations to an employer, in this case asking it to provide equal
opportunities training for sections of its HR function and senior
management.
|
Practical tips
Tribunals can recommend that employers take specific steps
to rectify the problems in the workplace that led to unfair treatment of
the claimant. Typically, this will include recommending equal
opportunities training for staff or the enforcement or updating of
policies.
It may be a reasonable adjustment to allow a disabled person
to be accompanied at a disciplinary hearing by someone other than a work
colleague or union representative, for example a friend or family
member. |
Ms Crisp worked on the tills for Iceland Foods Ltd. She
suffered from panic attacks and it was common ground that she is disabled for
the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. She left an Iceland store in Essex
after suffering from panic attacks, but got another position with the company in
a store in South Wales. She informed the company of her disability at the
interview stage.
About 18 months into her new position, Ms Crisp became seriously
ill and had to take time off work. She required support from her husband
and mother to manage her medication and deal with the panic
attacks. Although Ms Crisp sent sick notes to her employer via her husband
and mother, they did not all reach the appropriate manager. It also appears
that the company did not have Ms Crisp's up-to-date address in its personnel
files, which meant that she could not be contacted and management assumed that
she was absent without leave.
The employer initiated its procedure for dealing with unauthorised
absences, resulting in the decision to dismiss Ms Crisp. She was unaware of
this decision until her husband contacted the company to enquire why she had not
been paid. Ms Crisp was subsequently sent a letter outlining the reason for
her dismissal.
Ms Crisp appealed against her dismissal on the basis that she
had:
- been genuinely ill;
- provided sick notes; and
- not received any correspondence relating to the disciplinary
process.
A dispute arose prior to Ms Crisp's disciplinary appeal hearing
about whether or not her husband could accompany her at the hearing. Mr
Evans, the claimant's area manager, told her that her husband could not
accompany her because the employer's policy allowed only work colleagues or
union representatives as companions at disciplinary hearings.
Mr Evans and Ms Newbery, the area HR manager, accidentally left a
recording of a conversation that they had about the appeal hearing on Ms Crisp's
home answer phone. The tribunal noted that, while they had meant to leave a
message, they had left a recorded conversation that appeared to make light of Ms
Crisp's disability and express amusement at how she might react in the appeal
hearing. The tribunal said that the exchange included:
- a statement from Mr Evans that Ms Crisp's husband could not attend the
appeal hearing;
- a dismissive reaction from Ms Newbery after Mr Evans' statement;
- Mr Evans saying that Ms Crisp "will spring a fucking fuse and have a panic
attack and that will be the end of that"; and
- laughter from Ms Newbery in response to what Mr Evans had said about Ms
Crisp having a panic attack.
The employment tribunal noted that Mr Evans had undergone no
equality training. The tribunal said that it would have expected Ms
Newbery, as an HR professional, to have shown a better understanding of
disability issues, and that her awareness of mental health issues was "no less
than woeful". The tribunal concluded that Mr Evans and Ms Newbery had used
inappropriate humour to disguise the difficulty that they were having in dealing
with the claimant's condition.
Ms Crisp was very upset after hearing the recording and, according
to her mother, there was a marked deterioration in her condition. Ms Crisp
formed the view that she was seen in the workplace as "a crazy mental
person".
The appeal meeting with Mr Evans went ahead, with Ms Crisp's
mother required to wait outside. In the appeal meeting, Ms Crisp said that
she was not sure that she wanted to continue to work for the employer. Ms
Crisp attempted to raise the issue of the recorded conversation, but the company
made no further enquiries about this, despite the distress that this had clearly
caused to her. The only explanation that Mr Evans could give to the
tribunal for not dealing with the recording was that he did not want to upset Ms
Crisp further.
The appeal was upheld and, despite being given the opportunity to
move to another store, Ms Crisp told the HR department that she did not want to
return to work and would be pursuing an employment tribunal claim.
The employment tribunal upheld Ms Crisp's claims for:
- constructive dismissal, on the basis that she had resigned in response to
management's indication that it did not take her disability seriously, which
had damaged the implied term of trust and confidence;
- disability harassment and direct disability discrimination, as a result of
the recorded conversation that had been left on her answer phone; and
- failure to make reasonable adjustments when she was not allowed to be
accompanied at the appeal meeting by her husband or mother.
The employment tribunal took the unusual step of recommending
that, by 23 May 2013, the employer:
- require all members of the HR function who provide guidance to managers on
disciplinary and grievance procedures to undergo training in disability
discrimination matters, specifically issues related to mental health; and
- require all managers at Mr Evans' level of management to undergo training
in disability discrimination matters.
In addition, the employment tribunal ordered the company to pay
£7,729.53 to Ms Crisp. This included £7,000 for injury to
feelings.
Additional resources
|