[ad_1]
The recent case of Fair Brother v Abbey National Plc [2007] concerned an employee who was appointed as a client manager since March 1998. The employee suffered from obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), a fact that at the time when she applied for the job was not published the employer, but it became clear after she took up their positions. For the first employee, she had a good relationship with her colleagues. However, this changed in 2002 when two of her colleagues began to treat her and another employee, R, less favorable.
From that she was under the taunts of OCD and low-level her behavior was mainly designed to upset her condition. R was taunted about her perceived low hard work, and both R and employee was ousted. The situation deteriorated to the point where two bones colleagues only available to the employee by e-mail, despite them all being in the same office. After a particularly stressful week, the employee went out on July 25, 2003. She informed the area manager, N, of the problems that had led to leave her, and he went to investigate the complaint.
Two colleagues admitted that they had acted improperly against the employee during that week, and then both apologized N. This result of the study was approved by the worker, and she was advised that she should arrange to have ” cup of tea ‘with two colleagues to try to resolve their differences. She was also told that she could have faced a disciplinary hearing for walking out on 25 .. On August 13, she wrote a letter to the N outlining events which led to her walking out, the letter made no reference to the OCD her.
After meeting with a member of the Human Resources employer, F was decided that a full investigation of the events occurring in the week July 21, 2003 shall be carried out. Months after the meeting, the employee asked to have an event before the week studied as well. This latter request was rejected by the employer. A grievance meeting was held to discuss the allegations of employee that she had been bullied at work and that N had not conducted the initial investigation properly. These complaints were dismissed, which led to the employee to appeal the decision.
study was carried out of all complaints made by employees and 9 February 2004 were all dismissed her complaints. Subsequently, the 7July 2004, she said on the grounds that her employer had failed to bring its dispute to a reasonable conclusion. The employee was then claim before the employment tribunal for unfair dismissal in that she had been discriminated against because of her condition.
The Court considered that she had been unfairly dismissed because the lengthy grievance process employers had a number of serious shortcomings which meant that the employer had acted in a way that irreparably damaged the relationship of mutual trust and confidence between and employee. Discrimination employee’s claim was upheld on the grounds that the treatment she had received from her colleagues had been harmful and that there was a distinction between the treatment she had received and treated with R. employer then appealed.
employer that the employment tribunal had erred in finding unfair dismissal based on alleged defects in the grievance procedure. They argued that: –
§ tribunal had failed to consider whether the grievance procedure was within the range of reasonable responses available to the employer
§ tribunal had been wrong to limit their premises. the question of whether the employee has received different treatment; and
§ Tribunal should have considered whether the employee received favorable treatment.
§ It was argued that the Court had the most
The appeal was allowed. we do not consider whether the conduct of the employer had fallen within the range of reasonable responses available to him when investigating complaints the employee.
§ The tribunal had based its decision on deficiencies found in the first phase of the grievance procedure and despite these flaws have been corrected and the investigation was, it still had wrongly found that the employer had badly dismissed employee.
§ In addition to this, the evidence before the tribunal, including evidence that R had suffered similar treatment to that complaint by an employee, showed that the relationship between the employee and two straight colleagues had broken down, and behavior related not her OCD.
§ In such cases, the panel shall not be allowed disability discrimination, the employee’s claim.
The requirements of the employee was dismissed.
If you require further information please contact us at enquiries@rtcoopers.com or Visit http://www.rtcoopers.com/practice_employment.php
© RT COOPERS, 2007. This Briefing Note does not provide a comprehensive or complete statement of the law relating to the consideration or accept the legal advice. It is intended to highlight general issues. Always sought expert legal advice in relation to certain conditions.
[ad_2]