15th March, 2017
Lots of businesses consider using HR Consultancies as they perceive a costs saving, however, the most well known, Peninsula, has recently been faced with dealing with a Tribunal claim itself brought by ex employee (he was dismissed for redundancy following the issuing of an ET1), Mr L Baker, who was a “lawyer” providing legal advice and representation in tribunal hearings. Solicitor and Barrister is a defined qualification, lawyer is not. Peninsula’s troubles in this case might be of interest to employers.
The main issue in this case was whether Mr Baker could successfully claim harassment when he had not actually established that he is disabled under Section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. The answer was no.
Mr Baker had in January 2014 told Mr Ramsbottom, Peninsula’s Advocacy Manager, that he had dyslexia. An Occupational Health Report recommended reasonable adjustments and stated that Mr Baker was likely to be considered disabled.
Following this, Mrs English, Peninsula’s Director of Legal Services, decided to carry out the surveillance because she suspected that Mr Baker was not devoting the whole of his time and attention to Peninsula’s work. Mrs English denied knowing that Mr Baker was alleging that he was a disabled person when she authorised the surveillance although she was aware that he had been referred to occupational health.
Mr Baker claimed that by putting him under surveillance between 1-5 September 2014, and only telling him about the covert surveillance for the purpose of a disciplinary, amounted to unwanted conduct related to the protected characteristic of disability and that this had the effect of violating his dignity and/or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for him.
The Employment Tribunal (ET) found in favour of Mr Baker stating that Peninsula had:
“reacted adversely to the evidence of an individual’s disability and engaged in an aggressive and unjustified strategy against an employee. The trigger is the disability issue. This is a clear case of harassment related to disability”.
Peninsula appealed and the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) overturned the ET’s decision stating that:
“In my judgement the ET was bound, on the basis of the findings it made, to dismiss the harassment claim, because the Claimant had not shown that he was a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 of the 2010 Act. The harassment claim was therefore bound to fail”.
Perhaps just as interesting is the fact that despite describing themselves as the leading HR, employment law and health & safety consultancy firm, Peninsula decided to instruct solicitors and a barrister in relation to defending this claim. It appears when their own interests are at stake, their own team was not used. It also appears that this is not a fact that they wish to advertise. Daniel Barnett, employment law barrister, claims that Peninsula has blocked him on Twitter following his tweet which stated:
“Interesting how @peninsual_uk instruct a proper barrister when they want a proper job done bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT….#ukemplaw”
Our view is that HR always has its place, but that is not doing the work of solicitors or barristers.
If you need Employment Law advice that you can trust, please contact our Employment department.
You might also be interested in...
23rd May, 2017
Under the Equality Act 2010 (Gender Pay Gap Information) Regulations 2017 (SI 2017/172) (“GPG Regulations”) and the Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties and Public Authorities) Regulations 2017 (SI 2017/353) (“SDPA Regulations”) all large private, voluntary and public sector employers must publish details of their Gender Pay Gap on both their own website and a designated government website. The... Read More »
18th May, 2017
A Court of Appeal ruling this week that exonerated claimant personal injury solicitors of gaming the system for low-value road traffic accident (RTA) claims is also evidence that the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) needs to take more care when dealing with complaints by parties to litigation, it was argued yesterday. Leading regulatory solicitor Paul Bennett, a partner in... Read More »
16th May, 2017
Was a job applicant who suffered from Asperger’s Syndrome indirectly discriminated against by being required to sit a multiple choice “Situational Judgement Test” (SJT) as part of a recruitment process? The EAT in The Government Legal Service v Brookes  UKEAT/0302/16 concluded that she was. The Applicant had applied for a job at Government Legal Service (GLS) and... Read More »