The Sheffield Star reports an award of £2500 to a Manager at KFC who having complained about not being invited to a meeting was told "Maybe its because I'm being racist to a black woman". She complained and was not interviewed and appears to have been suspended without pay while the investigation took place. Another case for the "How not to" file.
Duty to make reasonable adjustments
In Routledge v TRW Systems a worker became sick with sleep-deprivation based depression after working alternate day/night shifts. He was advised by his GP to cease workihg nights so that he could get his body back into a normal pattern. The Tribunal decided his bosses had discriminated against him by faiiling to make a reasonable adjustment ie by not offering him a full time day job. No figures in the report on the award so watch this space.
Don't shoot the messenger...
In Chris Martin (not that one) v Parkam Food Group a Tribunal has found that a gay man who complained about graffiti in the work toilets which was abusive to him was entitled to resign and claim dismissal under the 2003 Equality Regulations because of the employers failure to deal with his complaints about it properly. 3 months after starting work he found a crude sexual drawing in the men’s toilets, in black marker pen with his name next to it. He complained; no action was taken; he wrote asking why not. The words “Chris Arse Martin” were then added to the graffiti. The company placed a warning notice in the toilets relating to graffiti but not to homophobic behaviour. He was suspended but the report does not say why. He resigned claiming constructive dismissal.
As an aside the Dewsbury Today reports this as a landmark case. Whenever you see this sloppy cliche ignore it - it usually means some pressure group is at work feeding text to lazy journalists.
An unreasonable boss is not a bullying boss
In Jenny Dodds v WRVS the Carlisle Tribunal has rejected a claim for constructive unfair dismissal. The employee resigned claiming her boss was bullying her. The Tribunal disagreed saying that at worst he was unreasonable and this didn't amount to a breach of her employment contract. To one person behaviour can appear to be firm management, to another it can feel like harassment.
"Copper seeks Twink"
The Nottingham Employment Tribunal has rejected a claim of sexual orientation discrimination in Ben Stokes v Chief Constable of Nottingham. The facts of the case as reported by the Pink News do make it quite suprising that the employee lost and he will be lodging an appeal. Hopefully the Pink News will correct their reference to a "gay sating agency"..... a slightly more accurate description of Gaydar than " gay dating agency".
Harsh but Fair
A good news day for employers today - first up is the case of Robert Surtees v Apache North Sea where a Tribunal dismissed a claim of unfair dismissal. The employee took a 2 hour break from his nightshift claiming he was unwell. He worked on an oil-rig and was mechanical technician. Even though he had been there 27 years and this was his first offence the Tribunal said that it was gross misconduct given the importance of his health and safety duties. Most imporantly they said that although they might not have made that decision themselves the employer was entitled to make that decision. This is the "band of reasonable responses" test beloved of employment lawyers acting for employers. A lenient employer might have just given him a final written warning given his length of service. The counter-argument would be that someone with long service should know better than to skive off work for 2 hours.
£800,000 for harassment
The case of Helen Green v Deutsche Bank was not an Employment Tribunal claim - but a High Court case for psychiatric injury caused by harassment by work colleagues. It is important though as Tribunal's can award damages for psychiatric injury in discrimination cases (where there is no limit on compensation.) This was not a sex discrimination case as the main perpetrators of the harassment were all women.... She was awarded £35,000 for pain and suffering, £25,000 for her disadvantage in the labour market, £128,000 for lost earnings and £640,000 for future loss of earnings and pension.
Sense of Humour Bypass - Lawyers guilty of racism
In Halima Aziz v Crown Prosecution Service the Court of Appeal has restored a tribunal decision (taken after a 9 day hearing) that the CPS racially discriminated against one of its own solicitors. The facts are quite ridiculous. Ms Aziz, a Muslim, walked into court and a security officer said to her that she was a security risk. Rather than taking offence at this astonishing comment she treated it as a joke and replied by saying that she was a friend of Osama Bin Laden's. She was suspended for making offensive comments. The original tribunal decided that the CPS would not have suspended a white solicitor for making the same comment. For rather more facts Halifax Today's report is quite good.
Pay Off Unlawful
Trinity Mirror's North Wales operation has published an article that might send shivers down the spine on lawyers or trade unionists representing public sector workers. The upshot is that the District Auditor has ruled that a pay off to a senior employee in advance of a Tribunal hearing was unlawful because the people about whom the Tribunal related were the ones taking the decision whether to spend taxpayers money on settling the claims brought about by their actions. It is not clear from the report if the £40+k settlement is being recovered from the ex-employee. If it is then some compromise agreements might not be as final as everyone thinks.
Less qualified man gets job - bosses get £21k bill
In Susan Rowley v Scottish Borders Council a female teacher seeking promotion was awarded £21,000 for unlawful sex discrimination when she was turned down for a promotion in favour of a less-qualified man. The tribunal found that the school had diluted the person spec to favour the winning man. He did not have the experience or qualifications directly related to the post. Foolishly other candidates for the post had been told that Susan Rowley's qualifications and experience were of no use to her. So if you are going to be stupid, keep quiet about it..... Of the £21,000 awarded £5000 was for injury to feelings. Unless you read the Daily Record where she was only awarded £16,000 of which £5000 was for injury to feelings. The award was high because the losing teacher quit the profession as she was so appalled by the way she had been treated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
