Veitch Penny LLP - Exeter | Crediton, Devon

Case

McAdie v Royal Bank of Scotland
Employment Appeal Tribunal - (29 November 2006)

Issues

(1) Unfair Dismissal
(2) Reason for Dismissal
(3) Capability

Facts

Ms McAdie had been employed by the Bank and its predecessor for over twenty years. She worked as a customer services officer. She had temporarily transferred to a different branch in 2003 but was unhappy with the transfer. She complained to her employer. Meetings were held to discuss the issues but Ms McAdie was unsatisfied with the response she had received and believed that one employee had spoken to her in an unsympathetic and authoritarian manner. On 10 September that year she went off sick with symptoms described as work-related stress. She submitted further complaints and when these were not properly dealt with she submitted a grievance under the procedure. Whilst this grievance procedure was on-going the Bank started its long term sickness procedure. During this time she met with the company’s occupational health doctor who diagnosed a severe adjustment disorder as a result of the situation at work. The doctor concluded that her condition was unlikely to respond to medical treatment, because of the lack of trust she had towards her employer and the sense of injustice she felt. She was unlikely to return to work. The company ultimately dismissed her on grounds of ill health.

Following an unsuccessful internal appeal she made a claim at the Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal and sex discrimination. The Tribunal found that her illness had been caused by the manner in which her grievance had been dealt with and that no reasonable employer would have dismissed an employee in those circumstances. The employee appealed.

Decision

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed the appeal. The Tribunal had misdirected itself as to the test to be applied. The EAT found that even though the employer had caused the incapability in question, it did not preclude that employer from effecting a fair dismissal. The issue to be looked at was whether the employer had acted reasonably in all the circumstances. This would include the fact that the employer was responsible for the original absence. The EAT confirmed that where the employer was responsible for an employee’s incapacity, the employer is expected to “go the extra mile” to find alternative employment or to put up with a longer period of sickness and absence than otherwise would be reasonable.

Comments

The EAT noted that if the Tribunal had been correct, it would mean that employers would be obliged to retain employees indefinitely who were unable to work. This case highlights once again the need for employers to ensure each situation is dealt with on the facts, taking advice if required at an early stage.

Rachel Billen – Associate Solicitor, Commercial Department at Veitch Penny.
Tel: 01392 278381, Fax: 01392 410247, Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
This Employment Law Update does not constitute legal or other professional advice and should not be relied on as such. You should take specific advice regarding your circumstances before taking any action based on the information contained within this Update.