If you’ve got learning disabilities, chronic illness, are young or gay, you’re more likely to be the victim of workplace bullying, according to a four year long survey of 4,000 people conducted by the Universities of Plymouth and Cardiff. The survey was reported in People Management Magazine Online yesterday.

The figures are fairly startling, even though those most likely to be targeted aren’t that surprising.  Clearly behaviour learned in the playground runs deep.  The survey reported that 47% of UK workers faced unreasonable treatment, which included being subjected to an unreasonable workload, having their views ignored and “employers not following proper procedures”.

I’m slightly sceptical of the categories of bullying behaviour: unreasonable treatment is in the eye of the beholder and there is no one fixed standard for a “reasonable” workload, for instance. It’s easy to claim that you have too much work on, or to complain that a petty grievance that is ignored is an example of an employer turning a deaf ear. But there is no doubt that many workplace environments are getting more pressured and unpleasant. As redundancies bite, the remaining employees are being asked to do more – we get regular enquiries from employees suffering overload at work, or who are being bullied (which is often expressed in the form of “micro-management). The dividing line between trying to get an employee to improve their performance and bullying someone by setting unrealistic targets might not always be easy to see.

One in five workers reported being shouted at by their manager and, shockingly, violence at work is said to be more widespread than previously thought, with 5% of respondents admitting to having been assaulted at work by customers, managers and colleagues.  That equates to 1.25 million people nationally, apparently. Of that figure, 13% of assaults were caused by colleagues and managers.  The public sector is badly affected, as are businesses with more than 250 employees.

What is striking though and perhaps cause for some limited cheer in an otherwise depressing report, is that race appears not to be a trigger for bullying and harassment.  I would place money that that wouldn’t have been the case fifteen or twenty years ago. There now needs to be concerted action in the workplace to make bullying and harassment on grounds of disability and sexual orientation as unacceptable as racist abuse now is.

That in turn requires employers to take a robust line on the issue and not just to view having a diversity policy as a fig-leaf, another box ticked to keep the compliance guys quiet. Whether that will happen in a depressed economic environment where unemployment is up and employees are more cautious about speaking out is debatable, but it should be the aim.

The government could take a lead on this issue, but instead appears determined to push on with its agenda of reforming employment law and making it easier to dismiss staff in companies where there are fewer than ten employees.  The Independent reported yesterday that George Osborne may include measures in his budget next month.    It is unlikely that the cause of diversity will be assisted when the backdrop is one of reducing employee’s rights in the workplace.  If there was real evidence that employment rights had a causative effect upon economic growth the government’s plans might be more justifiable but I don’t think anyone has yet produced any such evidence.  Instead, as usual, employment rights are kicked around from left to right like a football.

Which takes us back to the playground.

No related posts.

Workplace Bullying Worst for Gay, Young and Disabled People originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 24/02/2012.

There have been some interesting reported cases over the last couple of weeks on a broad range of topics.  For instance,

Legal Representation at Internal Disciplinary Hearings

In G v X School, a Court of Appeal case, it was held that a teaching assistant was entitled to legal representation at an internal disciplinary/grievance hearing in circumstances where that person’s right to practise in the profession was at risk.  In this particular case G was a teacher accused of sexual contact with a pupil at the school where he taught.  He was dismissed following investigation but was not allowed to have legal representation at the internal disciplinary hearing.  Subsequently the school reported him to the relevant regulatory body for consideration of whether he should be barred from working with children.   The case of Kulkarni v Milton Keynes General Hospital NHS Trust [2009] was followed and it was held that Article 6 of the ECHR required G to have legal representation because of the effect his dismissal would have on the decision of the ISA.  Note in both these cases they were against public authorities and the same result would not necessarily be the case if the employee was working in the private sector.  For example a banker facing a disciplinary hearing for an alleged offence of dishonesty would probably not be entitled to rely on this case even though his dismissal would be reported to the FSA and could lead to him losing his registration to practise.

Age Discrimination

The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 prohibit behaviour that subjects someone to less favourable treatment on the basis of a person’s age.  However, it can be permissible to discriminate against someone on the ground of their age if there is a “genuine occupational requirement”. The case of Wolf v Stadt Frankfurt Am Main heard before the European Court of Justice (ECJ) held that it was lawful for an upper age limit of 30 to be applied by the Federal state of Hesse in Germany on recruiting firemen.  However, in another German case before the ECJ, Petersen v Berufungsausschuss fuer Zahnaertze fuer den Bezirk Westfalen-Lippe it was not justifiable for a maximum age of 68 to be imposed on doctors and dentists practising in the state medical system where it was alleged that the rule was necessary to protect patients from a decline in performance as doctors and dentists got older: no such age limit existed in the private sector.   In other words, age limits on occupations can be imposed, but there will need to be a good reason for doing so.

Disability Discrimination

The definition of disability contained in the Disability Discrimination Regulations 1995 is a complex one and requires that the impairment be permanent or lasts for at least one year.  The case of Patel v Oldham MBC, heard before the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decided that when assessing whether the impairment will last for 12 months or more, it is necessary to consider whether another illness is likely to develop or has developed for the purpose of Schedule 1 paragraph 2 of the DDA.   In other words, if the secondary condition develops, or is likely to develop, from the original impairment it can be aggregated onto the original condition for the purpose of the section.  In other words, don’t just consider the original illness/injury but consider what secondary consequences there could be. 

 If you need advice on any of the above issues, or on anything to do with employment law, please contact me at Dale Langley & Co – 0207 464 8433 – or michaelscutt@dalelangley.co.uk

Related posts:

1. Case Round Up 20th November 2009
2. Case Round Up Friday 6th November 2009

Case Round Up 25th January 2010 originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 25/01/2010.

Yesterday Ian Barratt of Mind Strengths Ltd published his “Seven Top Stress Management Tips for Employees”.  Today I am publishing my “top tips” for employers hoping to avoid claims for stress at work from being commenced against them.   

First, some background. Stress at work is a complex and wide-ranging subject, touching on many aspects of employment and personal injury law. The claims will arise either under the law of personal injury (in negligence) or under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PHA) or, alternatively for constructive dismissal and/or discrimination.  All four could be raised in the same instance, although it is not possible for an employee to sue in negligence and unfair dismissal unless the circumstances leading to the injury are independent of the facts relating to the dismissal.  Although many employers may feel “under siege” from all the rights that employees have, they should note that the law is not kindly disposed towards employees in this area: stress at work claims are difficult and expensive for employees to pursue successfully.  

No employer can be immune from ever finding themselves facing a claim from an employee, but following the tips below ought to reduce the risk of a claim arising or, if one does, of being successful.  There are many legal aspects to allegations of “stress at work” and care needs to be taken when an employee asserts that the employer has, in some way, caused him/her to become unwell.  Most allegations will state either that the employer has overloaded the employee with work or not provided enough support/resource to do the job properly or that a line manager has bullied/harassed/victimised the employee.  

It is also not uncommon for employees to claim that they are suffering from “stress” when they fall into dispute with their employers or disciplinary/performance management processes are commenced against them.  

How to mitigate the risk of these claims arising?   

1. Adopt best practice  

The Health & Safety Executive publishes a great deal of information on the subject.  In particular it has devised “Management Standards” which “define the characteristics, or culture, of an organisation where the risks from work related stress are being effectively managed and controlled. … The Management Standards cover six key areas of work design that, if not properly managed, are associated with poor health and well-being, lower productivity and increased sickness absence.” There are six management standards covering demands; control, support, relationships, role and change.  The TUC and ACAS also publish useful materials on stress at work.  

2. Be aware.  

Carry out risk assessments of the roles your employees are expected to undertake and the workplace in which the role is to be carried out.  This is not only integral to the HSE’s Management Standards but is a statutory requirement under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (HSWA) and the Management of Health and Safety At Work Regulations 1999 (MHSW).  The HSWA applies to any employer with more than five employees and require “a written statement of his general policy with regard to health and safety at work of his employees”.  The MHSW requires a risk assessment “for the purpose of identifying the measures he needs to take to comply with” his particular statutory duties. Breach of this requirement can make an employer liable at civil law. However, a greater incentive for compliance is that an employer who does carry out a proper risk assessment is going to be better positioned to defeat a claim for stress at work than one who does not because the risk assessment process should uncover any obvious factors potentially giving rise to stress.  An employer will only be liable in negligence if his breach of duty of care to the employee was reasonably foreseeable.     

Take action before it is too late

3. Have a stress policy and adhere to it  

This might include providing employees with access to a counselling service or a telephone helpline. The courts look favourably on employers who do so, but the provision of such facilities won’t be enough on its own to rebut liability.  

4. Act fairly and consistently  

Stress claims can arise from incidents of bullying/harassment and victimisation.  Put in place policies promoting equality in the workplace – and enforce them.  Claims for discrimination can arise, apart from any other considerations over stress and there is no maximum cap for compensation unlike with unfair dismissal claims. We see many claims where the situation has been caused by fellow employees displaying completely inappropriate behaviour in the workplace, or line managers being “over-zealous” in trying to fulfil their roles. Ensure that line managers manage fairly and in a “human” fashion.   An employee suffering bullying at work from other colleagues or line managers may be able to bring a claim under the PHA for “distress” caused.  

5. Contracts of employment (1)   

Ensure that you have the contractual right (either in the contract of employment or the contractually binding section of the Employee Handbook) to require the employee to attend a doctor for the purpose of a medical report.  This can be a useful tool if the employee is off sick for any length of time because it means you can get a medical report from an independent expert rather than relying solely on the letters from the employee’s GP, who will often be very keen to be (too) supportive of the employee.  

6. Contracts of employment  (2)   

They should be drafted so that any entitlement to full sick pay (as opposed to statutory sick pay (SSP)) is in the discretion of the employer or, preferably, full sick pay will not be paid if an employee goes on sick leave immediately after having been asked to attend a disciplinary or performance management meeting.  Employees tend to become well again once they are not being paid.  SSP is payable in most cases (click here for main terms) for 28 weeks at the rate of £79.15.  Click here for more details on SSP.   Amending employees’ contracts of employment can be a complicated process, fraught with challenges of its own.  Please seek legal advice before deciding to do so.  

7. Act decisively  

If a stress at work problem looks like it might be rearing its ugly head, don’t ignore it.  Take legal advice as soon as possible.  

Related posts: Coming Soon … Miserable Monday  

If you are an employer or employee and need advice on your situation please contact me on 0207 464 8433 or at michaelscutt@dalelangley.co.uk.  

 None of the above material (or anything published anywhere on this blog by me or anyone else) constitutes legal advice to you.  You should not  rely on it and if you need legal advice about your situation you should take specific legal advice on your own situation.  I am always happy to provide legal advice via Dale Langley & Co.

Related posts:

1. Seven Top Stress Management Tips for Employees
2. Stress at work
3. UK Banks Facing Rising Lawsuits over Stress? Really?

Seven Ways for Employers to Avoid Stress at Work Claims originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 19/01/2010.

Employers have to repay sick pay

Some good news for employees came out last week with the decision by the European Court of Justice in Pereda v Madrid Movilidad SA that says if an employee is sick whilst on holiday, they can retake the holiday later on or carry the days lost over to the next year.

Not surprisingly employers’ representatives are unhappy about it as it places additional burdens on them. It also increases the risk of unscrupulous employees taking advantage. No guidance is offered by the ECJ on how this could be policed. Employers can only insist on a sick note from GPs after seven days absence.

Costs Awards in Tribunal

A while ago I wrote about the case of Daleside Nursing Home v Mathew which dealt with the issue of when costs should be awarded against a party by an Employment Tribunal. A recent case has now followed that decision. In Dunedin Canmore Housing Association Limited v Donaldson, a case before the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in Edinburgh it was held that the Claimant (who was representing herself) had lied under oath and the Tribunal should have awarded costs against her. In particular the Honourable Lady Smith said;

The issue was not whether a lay person could reasonably have been expected to understand the law. It was whether she had or had not, in simple human terms, approached the essential factual matters that lay at the heart of her case honestly and reasonably. She had not done so and these are exactly the sort of circumstances where a Tribunal has a responsibility to make clear that it is quite unacceptable to cause expense to another party by bringing proceedings on that basis.

Be warned!

Notice Monies and Constructive Dismissal

Here is some good news for employers. The Court of Appeal (CA) has recently overturned the EAT’s decision in Stuart Peters v Bell which had said that an employee who claimed constructive dismissal from his employer and then went on to work for another employer during the notice period they would otherwise have served did not have to give credit for the monies earned. This has been the law, since 1972 case of Norton Tools v Tewson. Effectively the employee could get his salary twice for that period, which was something of a windfall for him. That has now been overturned by the CA, but only insofar as constructive dismissal cases are concerned. So, if an employee claims constructive dismissal, leaves the employer without serving their notice and finds alternative work elsewhere, the employer won’t have to pay the notice monies due to the employee during that period.

Norton Tools is still good law in other respects and hasn’t been completely overturned.

Please contact me on 0207 464 8433 or email me at michaelscutt@dalelangley.co.uk if you require further advice.

Related posts:

1. Constructive Dismissal: Good news for Employers?
2. The latest on Heyday
3. BA is in the news again …

Latest News originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 18/09/2009.

As an employer, if you want to avoid your name appearing in the Metro or any of the other free papers, try to avoid sacking employees suffering from cancer by email.  This is the moral from the recent report concerning Melinda Bolnar, a 27 year old teacher suffering from bowel cancer and who had just endured seven months of chemotherapy and given a 30% chance of survival.  According to the report it is alleged that her private school sacked her by email.  I should point out that the case is due to be heard at an Employment Tribunal later this year and the above report are merely the employee’s allegations against her employer and not the proven facts.

The report probably doesn’t give the whole story but it certainly gives the impression that Melinda was sacked without any form of disciplinary or capability procedure.  If that genuinely is the case the school might find themselves in difficulty when the case does reach the ET.

So (assuming that is what happened) what should an employer do if it wants to terminate the employment of an employee suffering from long-term illness?

The first and most important question is why should the employer want to terminate the employee’s employment?  This will be at the heart of any subsequent litigation that may arise.  The usual answer given by employers is that they could not afford to keep the position empty whilst the employee was away or that temporary cover could not be extended indefinitely.  Much will depend upon the role performed by the employee and the extent to which it is reasonable for the employer to reach the conclusion that dismissing the employee was reasonable in all the circumstances.  The size and resources of the business will be important too. What action might be reasonable for a small employer to take will be greatly different from a multi-national PLC or, for example, the NHS. How the employer treated other staff in similar circumstances on other occasions will be relevant: what are the contractual sick pay provisions, if any?

There are only a limited number of grounds on which dismissing an employee will be fair.  They include capability to do the job.  This can mean lack of ability of the employee to fulfil their role (i.e. incompetence) or it could include inability to do the job through sickness.  Problems can arise for an employer when the employee takes lots of short periods of time off sick (whether genuinely or otherwise) but when, as in the type of case under discussion here the employee is off for weeks or months.   

A prudent employer will properly investigate the reasons for the employee being absent and will try and establish when they might return.  This will need to be done with sensitivity and tact, which means good communications between employer-employee are going to be vital to make this work.  It will probably need medical evidence to be obtained and a well-drafted contract of employment should include a clause which allows the employer to send the employee to a doctor of its own choosing.  If the medical evidence suggests that the employee will be fit to return to work, even if on a gradually stepped basis at first, in a fairly short space of time, the business will need to think long and hard before dismissing.  On the other hand, if the absence looks like being lengthy then the employer may be justified in bringing the employment relationship to an end, provided it does so on grounds of (in)capability.

Where difficulties arise (as in Melinda Bolnar’s case) is where the employee feels there are other grounds for dismissal.  The Metro report states that she is suing for disability discrimination.  Much will depend, as usual, on who said or did what and when.  To avoid difficulties of this sort an employer needs to act clearly and openly about what it is doing and why. 

It needs to follow a proper process, as laid down by the ACAS Code of Practice introduced this April. In brief this means the employer investigating properly, inviting the employee to a meeting to discuss the issues, allowing them to be accompanied by a work colleague or Trade Union representative and to make their point.  Finally, the employee should be informed of their right to appeal the decision if it goes against them.  If the employer gets it wrong they can not only face a claim for unfair dismissal (with the potential for the award to be increased by up to 25% if they are deemed to have acted unreasonably) but also a claim for disability discrimination.  Claims under the DDA are not capped at the £66,200 maximum compensatory award, as with unfair dismissal cases.

Of course, all the above leaves aside the moral issue of whether it is the right step to take but and Courts/Tribunals don’t make judgments on moral grounds: the newspapers do that.

If you are an employer or employee requiring further advice on any of these issues, please get in touch with me at michaelscutt@dalelangley.co.uk or on 0207 464 8433

No related posts.

How (not) to sack someone originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 14/09/2009.

I was pleased to learn that Riam Dean, the law student who sued Abercrombie & Fitch for wrongful dismissal and unlawful harassment (because of her disability) won her case at the London Central Employment Tribunal.  According to The Independent today, she was awarded £7,800 compensation for injury to feelings, £1,077.37 for loss of earnings and £136.75 damages for being wrongfully dismissed.  It is reported that she did not succeed with her claim for “direct” disability discrimination which the ET thought was “not well founded”.   I would be interested to read the law report on this case, if it ever gets published, for the reasoning behind the decision. I’ve posted before on the case (click here).

It’s always good to see the style police take a battering.

Related posts:

1. Not the right look for Abercrombie & Fitch … allegedly

Riam wins originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 14/08/2009.

Riam Dean’s case against the American clothing company Abercrombie & Fitch caught my eye this week. Last summer she had a holiday job working as a shop assistant at the Savile Row branch of A&F.  She alleges she was told to leave the shopfloor and work in the stockroom, for not complying with the company’s strict “look” policy.  Her crime?  She was wearing a white cardigan.  Apparently (and this was all news to me) A&F have a very strict policy on the appearance of their staff which doesn’t include white cardigans it would seem.  This however, wasn’t a claim under the Employment Equality (Prevention of Discrimination to Cardigan Wearers) Regulations, which have yet to be promulgated.  It was instead a claim under the Disability Discrimination Act because Riam wore the cardigan to disguise her prosthetic lower left arm.  She was self-conscious about the join between her arm and the prosthetic at the elbow. She says she had previously been given special permission to wear the cardigan.  The case is ongoing at the moment, the ET hasn’t decided whether to accept her allegations or not and it will be interesting to see the result.  However, if her allegations are upheld it will be a shameful episode for A&F. 

I would anticipate that she is claiming direct discrimination under the DDA.  S.3A of the DDA 1995 provides that

3A(1) For the purposes of this Part, a person discriminates against a disabled person if -

(a) for a reason which relates to the disabled person’s disability, he treats him less favourably than he treats or would treat others to whom that reason does not or would not apply, and
(b) he cannot show that the treatment in question is justified.

In order for a person to be able to claim that they are disabled within the meaning of the DDA they have to jump through a complex series of tests in order to qualify. S.1 defines disability thus;

s.1(1) Subject to the provisions of Schedule 1, a person has a disability for the purposes of this Act if he has a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

However, there is an exclusion for people who are “severely disfigured”: Schedule 2 para 3(1) they can be deemed disabled without having to satisfy the above test;

An impairment which consists of a severe disfigurement is to be treated as having a substantial adverse effect on the ability of the person concerned to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

Rian’s left arm probably counts as a severe disfigurement and I will await the full case report (if published) to see whether A&F took any points on this. From what I have read there was nothing to suggest that she could not physically do the job.

If she is successful she will be able to claim for injury to feelings as well as her economic losses, although if it was only a holiday job (she is a law student) those will be limited.  There is no qualifying period of employment required before being able to bring a claim under the DDA (unlike with unfair dismissals where 12 months continuous employment is required). 

The case also caught my eye because it reminded me of a friend who was recently told by her boss to cover up her arms, because the severe psoriasis she has on them, might put customers off. I should say she doesn’t work for A&F.  She was very upset, to say the least, and we discussed at some length what her rights were and what she ought to do.  She is still mulling it over. 

But back to Riam’s case, for more commentary on it have a look at the Daily Telegraph’s coverage – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fashion/fashionnews/5637449/Abercrombie-and-Fitch-worker-with-prosthetic-limb-left-shattered–says-her-mother.html   and also take a look at Usefully Employed’s post on the same case http://blog.usefullyemployed.co.uk/2009/06/25/abercrombie-fitch-disability-row/

No related posts.

Not the right look for Abercrombie & Fitch … allegedly originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 29/06/2009.