Business Law Advice Service
Case Study
BUT HE DIDN’T TELL US HE WAS ILL……
BUT HE DIDN’T TELL US HE WAS ILL……
Machine Bearings Ltd had employed Kevin Smith as a machine operator for two months when they decided to dismiss him. They felt that his work rate was too slow and he seemed to lose his concentration completely in the afternoon. Kevin received a letter of dismissal at the end of his shift on a Friday without any prior discussion. The Company thought this was acceptable believing that Kevin had not been employed long enough to be able to complain to the Employment Tribunal.
However, it then emerged that Kevin was slow because he was diabetic and had been experiencing difficulties in controlling his insulin.
Kevin complained of disability discrimination to the Employment Tribunal. The Tribunal agreed with him and made an award of damages against Machine Bearings Ltd of £20,000.
WHAT SHOULD MACHINE BEARINGS HAVE DONE?
The company should have had an initial meeting with Kevin to point out that he was not performing to the required standard and to investigate whether there were any reasons why that may be. This may have highlighted his diabetes. Alternatively the company should have followed the statutory minimum disciplinary procedure prior to making a decision to dismiss, which would have ensured that there were discussions with Kevin and potentially his doctor to understand the problems and to see what steps could be taken to assist Kevin. Only in an instant where no help was available to assist Kevin in carrying out his duties and the company had no alternative positions that would suit Kevin then they could move on to discuss and potentially dismiss on the grounds of incapability. However in this particular case it would have only been a matter of Kevin’s doctor helping him out with his insulin.
“Machine Bearings” solicitors would have advised that there should be a brief investigatory meeting to ascertain the facts before any decision is made to terminate Kevin’s employment. They would have also pointed out that there is no length of service requirement for dismissals in connection with disability discrimination.
AT WHAT COST?
Machine Bearings should have worked with their solicitors to ensure they had a fair disciplinary procedure in place to follow in all disciplinary or performance issues that arose in the workplace which would have cost approximately £250 plus VAT. As Kevin’s case involved the Disciplinary Discrimination Act they may have taken further specific advice at an approximate cost of £ £300 plus VAT which would have include draft letters. This is significantly less costly than the £20,000 compensation that they were told by the Tribunal they would have to pay to Kevin.
However, it then emerged that Kevin was slow because he was diabetic and had been experiencing difficulties in controlling his insulin.
Kevin complained of disability discrimination to the Employment Tribunal. The Tribunal agreed with him and made an award of damages against Machine Bearings Ltd of £20,000.
WHAT SHOULD MACHINE BEARINGS HAVE DONE?
The company should have had an initial meeting with Kevin to point out that he was not performing to the required standard and to investigate whether there were any reasons why that may be. This may have highlighted his diabetes. Alternatively the company should have followed the statutory minimum disciplinary procedure prior to making a decision to dismiss, which would have ensured that there were discussions with Kevin and potentially his doctor to understand the problems and to see what steps could be taken to assist Kevin. Only in an instant where no help was available to assist Kevin in carrying out his duties and the company had no alternative positions that would suit Kevin then they could move on to discuss and potentially dismiss on the grounds of incapability. However in this particular case it would have only been a matter of Kevin’s doctor helping him out with his insulin.
“Machine Bearings” solicitors would have advised that there should be a brief investigatory meeting to ascertain the facts before any decision is made to terminate Kevin’s employment. They would have also pointed out that there is no length of service requirement for dismissals in connection with disability discrimination.
AT WHAT COST?
Machine Bearings should have worked with their solicitors to ensure they had a fair disciplinary procedure in place to follow in all disciplinary or performance issues that arose in the workplace which would have cost approximately £250 plus VAT. As Kevin’s case involved the Disciplinary Discrimination Act they may have taken further specific advice at an approximate cost of £ £300 plus VAT which would have include draft letters. This is significantly less costly than the £20,000 compensation that they were told by the Tribunal they would have to pay to Kevin.
Business Law Advice Service
- Free 30 minute consultation
- Guides you through the legal process
- Prevents issues from escalating in the first place
- Covers all areas of employment and business law
- Fully qualified solicitors
- Immediate response by telephone or email
- Clear and pragmatic legal advice
BUSINESS
LAW
0800 028 4396
ADVICE LINE
0800 028 4396
ADVICE LINE
Website Design by:
Home |
Employment Law |
Commercial Property |
Commercial Litigation |
Business Law
Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Copyright Information | Site Map
Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Copyright Information | Site Map
Business Law Advice Service
0800 028 4396 advice@dbf-law.co.uk.
0800 028 4396 advice@dbf-law.co.uk.