McAdie v Royal Bank of Scotland
It is well established in law that employees can claim compensation if they are injured at work and their employer is responsible. But can they claim unfair dismissal?
The Court of Appeal has made clear in McAdie v Royal Bank of Scotland that just because an employer may be responsible for the employee’s ill health does not mean they cannot dismiss them.
Basic facts
After undergoing treatment for breast cancer in 1993, Ms McAdie decided to take a part time job in Bromley that was less stressful. In 2000/1 she went on maternity leave. On her return, she discovered that her new manager, Mr O’Shaughnessy, had downgraded her assessment mark from 4 to 3. She took out a successful grievance against him.
In June 2003, Mr O’Shaughnessy asked her to move temporarily to the Swanley branch. She was reluctant to do so, and after a futile meeting with him, had a meeting with his manager, Mr Geerts on 17 July, by which stage she had already moved to Swanley.
That meeting went well but she became upset after a telephone call to him on 4 September to complain about the notes of the meeting. And then, when Mr O’Shaughnessy discussed the possibility with her that same day of moving back to Bromley, she said she felt as though they “were playing” with her.
She went off sick on 10 September 2003 and, a week later, wrote to Mr Geerts about the inadequacy of the notes and how upset she had been by their telephone call. She finally received a reply, rebutting her accusations, on 20 October. Perhaps not surprisingly, she then submitted a grievance but after going through all three stages (and many delays), her grievance was not upheld.
The bank then wrote to her, asking her to a long-term sickness absence meeting on 4 August 2004. She was dismissed on 22 December, following medical evidence to the effect that she felt she could not return to work. She claimed unfair dismissal.
Tribunal decision
The tribunal decided that although the reason for her dismissal was capability (a potentially fair reason), this had been caused by the bank’s failure to investigate and address her grievance properly.
In particular, it highlighted the bank’s admission to the tribunal that Mr Geerts’ manner with Ms McAdie had been “unfortunate”, yet it had not upheld her grievance on this point. It concluded that no reasonable employer would have dismissed in these circumstances because they would not have allowed things to get to that stage.
EAT decision
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) said that the tribunal had been right to take the bank’s responsibility for Ms McAdie’s ill health into account. However, it should then have asked whether it was reasonable for the bank to dismiss her, given all the circumstances at the time. Instead, the tribunal had only considered whether it should have got into those circumstances in the first place.
This, it said, was a misdirection because it would apply in any case where an employer negligently injured an employee and would mean “that the employer in such circumstances could never fairly dismiss.” That would mean having to “retain on their books indefinitely employees who were incapable of any useful work.”
Instead, the EAT made clear that employees who have been injured as a result of a breach of duty by their employers are entitled to claim compensation which may include compensation for lost earnings and lost earning capacity. Tribunals, therefore, “must resist the temptation of being led by sympathy for the employee into including granting by way of compensation for unfair dismissal what is in truth an award of compensation for injury.”
However, it also made clear that in cases where the employer was responsible for the employee’s in capacity, they should “go the extra mile in finding alternative employment for such an employee, or to put up with a longer period of sickness absence than would otherwise be reasonable.”
Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal agreed with the EAT saying that its analysis was an excellent summary of the authorities and should, in future, be followed by both employment tribunals and appeal tribunals.