A Thanet civil servant has been awarded £373,936.69 compensation in a case against the Department for Work and Pensions for harassment related to disability and breach of duty to make reasonable adjustments.
The 58-year-old, who has asked not to be named due to health issues, had worked for the DWP for almost 20 years and was based in Thanet.
But he ended up going on sick leave in May 2018 after a series of incidents at work and his physical and mental health deteriorated so severely that he now rarely leaves the house, suffers panic attacks, severe depression, fibromyalgia with fatigue, muscle and joint pain and limited ability to walk.
The documents say sick leave followed incidents including:
- a ‘nutters’ comment related to mental health during a work presentation;
- an absence of medical evidence and inadequate basis for a manager to instigate a ban on him from driving at work;
- an ‘informal’ meeting which was not informal and with no notice, that went on for over three hours where the claimant was ambushed with complaints about himself to such a degree that he became suicidal and even faced a wall in a state of deep distress and spoke to them from that position yet the meeting continued
After he went on sick leave a grievance process took place but the tribunal found the claimant was unhappy with the outcome but never advised of his right to appeal
They also found that when the claimant’s absence reviews were taken on by a different staff member previous agreements to hold them at a neutral venue were suddenly rejected and he was told to attend work offices despite this clearly being distressing for him.
This resulted in resignation which the tribunal agreed was constructive dismissal.
It was also found that no attempt to offer mediation had been made and that holiday pay entitlement had not been properly paid.
Employment at DWP
He began his employment in May 1999 and in 2002 was promoted to the grade of Executive Officer based at Ramsgate and moving to Margate in 2008.
The Claimant had a history of mental health problems since 2008 that included anxiety and depression which at times were very severe and an eating disorder where he was unable to eat or drink during hours of daylight.
In 2012, the Claimant experienced anxiety and depression that he attributed to work related events in which he felt he had been undermined and humiliated. He had a 12 week period of sickness absence. When he returned to work a number of reasonable adjustments were made including having a phased return and some alteration to duties.
There were no further issues until after December 2015, when a number of employees of Thanet council transferred to DWP employment and one became the claimant’s line manager the following year.
Incidents
The same year at a staff conference a Senior Executive Officer, gave a presentation on mental health issues and, the claimant alleged, he said 49% of people would have mental health problems at some stage. He then said, with reference to one half of the room, words to the effect of, so you lot are ‘nutters’. This claim was denied by the officer, who branded the claimant a liar, and his new line manager and another manager claimed not to recall it being said.
However, an employment tribunal found the claimant’s account to be credible.
In October 2017 the claimant fainted while at work. His line manager suggested he speak to Occupational Health (OH) as she wanted medical evidence on his fitness to drive in light of him fainting.
The Claimant was not keen to do so because he had a previous negative experience of OH.
In November 2017, he emailed his manager to say he was on prescription diazepam. The tribunal noted that Diazepam is a drug that can cause drowsiness but there is no blanket ban on driving when taking it. By February 2018 the claimant discovered there had been an error with his diazepam and he had been prescribed an excess dosage.
That same month his manager told him he was not permitted to drive during work hours. Her reasoning was “a duty of care towards him and as he doesn’t eat or drink during daylight hours and is also now taking Diazepam.”
But the tribunal found that her claim she then told the claimant to contact OH and he refused was incorrect. The panel also found that the claimant’s request for the DWP to ask his doctor for a letter about his fitness to drive was not carried out and the manager had been advised by HR that he couldn’t be banned from using his own car but she went ahead anyway.
He had not been given any information in writing in respect of the ban and he was informed he may be subject to a disciplinary if he used his own vehicle to travel during work time despite there being no proper grounds for the ban
‘Ambushed’
The ‘ambush’ meeting took place on 26 April 2018. The tribunal documents say:
“No notice was given of the meeting or its content. It was conducted by two senior managers.
“At the outset, Mr A was styled as a note-taker. However, in fact he asked the Claimant lots of the questions.
“The Claimant expressed reservations about continuing with the meeting because he had not given notice of it and was not accompanied. However, he was told that it was an informal meeting so he was not entitled to notice.
“The meeting was not informal at all, indeed at the very outset the Claimant was told that his behaviour was in breach of the DWP’s Equality & Diversity Policy and Standards of Behaviour.
“In reality, the Claimant was ambushed with a range of complaints about his behaviour towards various members of staff particularly Ms S. He was told that it was having a big impact on the team.
“During the course of the meeting, which lasted 3 – 4 hours, the Claimant became extremely distressed at times.
“At one stage the Claimant said he felt suicidal in the meeting and he told them exactly that. Essentially their response was to ask ‘are you alright?’ and then carry on.
“At another stage of the meeting the Claimant said he could not look at Ms S and Mr A and so he went and faced a wall in a state of deep distress and spoke to them from that position. The meeting continued nonetheless.”
Sick leave and resignation
The following month the claimant submitted a lengthy complaint which was treated as a grievance and shortly after he went on sick leave.
The lengthy absence review process followed up until the point when the new officer, Ms B, refused to meet in a neutral place after a phone call with the claimant where a was in the company of a friend who became angry.
Ms B said she was “concerned that the Claimant might invite the press and that there might be cameras if she met him at a neutral venue. She was also concerned about her safety.”
But the tribunal decided these concerns were not reasonable or backed up by any evidence.
This incident led to the claimant’s resignation which came into effect from 2 June 2019.
Tribunal documents say that following his resignation letter a manager claimed he “had been given the option to mediate the allegations of bullying and discrimination but had declined. He had not been given that option;
“She told the Claimant that he had been notified of his right to appeal and the identity of the appeal manager. That is wrong on both counts and when the Claimant gave Ms K a letter challenging the grievance outcome, it was not progressed as an appeal or seemingly at all.”
While on sick leave the claimant was seen ‘working’ at a hospitality outlet and reported by former colleagues.
This “was dealt with as a potential fraud issue on the basis that the Claimant was working whilst on sick-leave and sick-pay. The log of events shows the matter was rapidly escalated and once it became clear that the Claimant had permission to carry out this ‘work’ for therapeutic reasons no further action was taken.”
The compensatory award was made up of sums for injury to health, injury to feelings, past and future financial losses. A previous payment for unfair dismissal of £13,650 had already been made.
‘Changes’
The man, who is unlikely to ever be fit for work again, said: “I loved my job and the judgment shows that despite the behaviour of others attempting immoral or illegal practices, (I feel) I was the only one who told the truth.
“ I was a specialist in my field. Civil servants are not that well paid therefore they got value for money. I would have hoped to have worked for them until maybe 70 years. The one government department that should not have treated any employee with disability harassment is the DWP. “Yet time and time, DWP managers show themselves be poorly equipped in dealing with employees with disabilities.
“The statistics are poor, bullying and harassment by other staff has remained at 12% over the course of the past at least six years. I was harassed at a time where I had mild depression and anxiety. Now I will live forever with serious debilitating symptoms because of DWP managers treatment of me.
“If I were sensitive it was because I valued my job. DWP need to bring changes. They need to focus on workplace mediation as a way of resolving disputes.”
