The court concluded that, due to its temporary and “abnormal” nature, the employees’ express agreement to alter their normal working days did not preclude them from the right to guarantee payments. The court held that Fridays remained days on which Abercrombie and his colleagues were “normally contractually required to work” and they were, therefore, entitled to guarantee payments for those days without work. Comment (CIPD) While claims for guarantee payments are rare, employers that are considering reducing employees’ weekly hours temporarily should be aware that they may, in fact, still be required to pay employees guarantee payments for any days they would normally have worked under their contracts of employment. Employees can currently claim up to a maximum of five guarantee payments in any three-month period.
Reasonable adjustments can include private psychiatric counselling
6 November 2013
An ET found that the employer had not made reasonable adjustments by failing to pay for the employee to have private psychiatric services and counselling.
The case of Croft Vets Ltd & Ors v Butcher is very interesting given the government’s recent consultation on the provision of tax relief on medical expenditure. An Employment Tribunal found that an employer had not made reasonable adjustments by failing to pay for the employee to have private psychiatric services and counselling. The issue was not the payment of private medical treatment in general, but, rather, payment for a specific form of support to enable her to return to work and cope with the difficulties she had been experiencing at work. Mrs Butcher started work for the veterinary practice Croft Vets in 1996. Over time the practice expanded and she was promoted to finance and reception manager. In the period from 2007 to 2010 the practice opened a new hospital and acquired new phone and IT systems, both of which suffered the inevitable teething troubles, all of which Mrs Butcher had to manage on top of her existing responsibilities. Unsurprisingly, she was observed sitting in her office staring out of the window in tears shortly after returning to the office, following a week off, during which she had moved house. A few days later in May 2010 she went off sick with depression, never to return. Her employers’ initial response was to offer the choice between support to carry on with her existing workload or taking a lesser job at lower pay. After a few weeks, they asked her to see a consultant psychiatrist “ to allow us to consider whether there are any steps we can take now to facilitate your return to work .” The psychiatrist reported back on 19 August that work related stress had triggered a severe depressive episode with marked anxiety. He recommended that as well as antidepressant medication she should have six further psychiatric sessions including CBT to help her recover. He gave an indication that the cost would not exceed £750. There ensued some correspondence between employer and psychiatrist which confirmed the diagnosis, and discussed how long she might remain unwell; no steps were taken to implement the psychiatric recommendations. In November 2010 Mrs Butcher resigned: she alleged that that her employers had caused her breakdown, questioned the psychiatrist’s diagnosis, and ignored his recommendations, all of which meant that she had suffered disability discrimination. The final view of the psychiatrist, (given after her resignation) was that given specialist help, while it was difficult to predict how long she would be unwell, the average period for recovery would be a year, but that given the severity of the issues at work, there was only a 50/50 chance of her being able to return at all. Emplaw Online reports:
CIPP Policy News Journal
16/04/2014, Page 122 of 519
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker