Reward insight
part of the redundancy evaluation process. The email was sent to Ms Pease’s work email address which meant she was unable to read it as she had no access to her work email address whilst on maternity leave. However, she learnt shortly afterwards that she had missed this letter and contacted the Trust on 4 August 2016 to rectify the issue. At this stage, the Trust proceeded to send a copy of the letter to the claimant’s private email address, which she completed and returned straight away. Sometime after this, the Trust made a decision to make the claimant and several colleagues redundant. At this point, a claim was raised to an ET that the delay in receiving the aforementioned letter amounted to unfavourable treatment and maternity discrimination. The ET allowed the unfavourable treatment claim and held that because the claimant did not have access to her work emails she did not receive adequate communication during the redundancy process. They ultimately determined that ‘but for’ her maternity leave the claimant would not have been subjected to unfavourable treatment and would have received the email at the same time as everyone else. The Trust appealed this decision to the employment appeal tribunal (EAT) and whilst they agreed that the circumstances of the case did amount to unfavourable treatment, they disagreed with the reasoning of the initial ET. They went on to outline that the ‘but for’ test applied by the ET was an insufficient basis for determining discrimination. Instead the EAT explained that the correct test to apply in these circumstances was the ‘reason why’ test, which would allow the court to ultimately assess whether the claimant’s maternity leave was the reason why she was treated unfavourably. The EAT added that it first needed to be established if the maternity was on the mind of the Trust and if this influenced their actions. Because no facts had been produced which clearly demonstrated this, it could be argued that the unfavourable treatment simply amounted to an administrative error. Therefore, the EAT remitted the case back to the same ET to establish further facts and make a determination on this basis. Overall, it is important to note that tribunals will determine whether any unfavourable treatment experienced by an
employee on maternity leave was due to her pregnancy, or some other unrelated reason. Therefore in these situations, it is incorrect to apply the ‘but for’ test. To safeguard against potential claims employers should keep staff on maternity leave fully informed of any changes affecting the workplace, including promotion opportunities and redundancy decisions. This means contact details for the employee should be clearly established before the leave begins and any communication attempts should be followed up to ensure they have been received. ... employee’s refusal to follow the instruction was not a direct consequence of her disability... iForce Ltd v Wood Here the EAT was tasked with determining whether there was enough of a causal connection between an employee’s disability and conduct in order to support a disability discrimination claim. This case concerned a warehouse operative who was classed as disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 due to osteoarthritis. The claimant believed that this condition worsened in cold and damp weather; a belief supported by her doctor. The organisation took a decision to introduce a change in its working practices. This meant warehouse staff were required to work between benches in the warehouse and therefore move around the working area, rather than stay in one fixed position. The claimant refused to comply, as she believed moving to work at the benches closer to the warehouse’s loading doors would place her in colder, damper conditions and exacerbate her osteoarthritis. After hearing of these concerns, iForce proceeded to investigate by installing thermometers and found evidence to show that the claimant’s beliefs were incorrect: the temperature and humidity levels were not materially different throughout the warehouse. Because of this, iForce did not accept that the employee had provided a reasonable explanation for her refusal and issued her with a final written warning,
which was later downgraded to a warning after the organisation accepted her actions were likely due to her worry and stress. Despite this, the employee proceeded to bring a claim for disability discrimination to an ET. She cited section 15 of the Equality Act 2010, claiming that the issuing of a final written warning had subjected her to a detriment because of something arising as a consequence of her disability. Whilst the ET accepted that the employee had been mistaken to believe she was going to be placed in colder, damper conditions, they stated that her refusal to accept the instruction was solely due a genuine belief that it would have an adverse impact on her due to her disability. Therefore, to issue a written warning for this would qualify as discrimination arising as a consequence of a disability. However, iForce proceeded to appeal this decision to the EAT which overturned the ET’s original ruling. They outlined that, when determining whether the employee had suffered a detriment as a consequence of her disability, there needed to be a connection between her refusal to follow management instructions and the disability. Although the claimant was right to state working in colder, damper conditions would exacerbate her condition, the employer had actually provided evidence to show that there would be no difference in her working conditions. Therefore, the employee’s refusal to follow the instruction was not a direct consequence of her disability as no causal link had been established that linked her disability to her belief. It is worth noting that the EAT did agree that this determination may not be the case where an employee’s mistaken perception is directly affected by their disability; however, they confirmed that this did not apply in this situation. This outcome demonstrates how the onus is placed on employees to clearly establish a causal link between the action that led to the detrimental treatment and their disability. Alternatively, where an employee mistakenly feels they have been subjected to a detriment, they will need to prove there is a causal connection between the disability and the erroneous belief. Employers should remember to take care when making changes to the working environment of a disabled employee and be prepared to make reasonable adjustments where necessary to avoid potential discrimination claims. n
35
| Professional in Payroll, Pensions and Reward |
Issue 52 | July/August 2019
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker