Nicola Mullineux, Senior employment specialist for
Peninsula, reviews the decision in three cases involving claims of discrimination, grounds for dismissal and national minimum wage for time spent sleeping
Discrimination, dismissal, wage
IPC Media Ltd v Millar The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has dismissed the Employment Tribunal’s (ET’s) decision that a disabled journalist, with a record of absence, was discriminated against for reasons relating to her disability. The decision to dismiss was taken by someone who was not aware of the claimant’s medical history and therefore the dismissal was not discriminatory. The claimant, Millar, was a features editor on one of IPC Ltd’s magazines, a position which required her to work full-time at the London office. Following a series of absences, in 2008, due to her osteoarthritis, Millar’s editor and line manager decided she would resume a position as a copy editor which would involve working three days a week in the office and the other two from home. During this period Millar had had a number of operations and was to have another in May 2011. In the same year the company underwent a reshuffle and the company informed Millar that she had been made redundant; however, efforts were being made to find alternative employment within the company. A vacancies list
38 PayrollProfessional
was posted to Millar but no suitable vacancies were available nor were any roles available on the company intranet. After a succession of meetings with the IPC’s Publishing Director (‘O’), Millar’s redundancy was confirmed with effect from 15 April 2011.
...EMPLOYER ARGUED THAT A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF DISCRIMINATION WAS NOT APPROPRIATE
Millar’s appeal was heard by a different publishing director (‘G’), and O was also present. O was asked about alternative vacancies to which she replied that various roles were available including the position of associate editor. Millar told of how she was not aware of these vacancies to which O replied they had not been signed off. Although similar roles had been offered and declined by her colleagues, they had not been offered to Millar at all. Her appeal
was heard but dismissed and confirmed in writing, the issue of her health and age was addressed stating that it had no part in the decision to make her redundant, and that it was due to the lack of suitable roles available.
Millar brought proceedings on the basis that she had been discriminated against on account of her age and disability (osteoarthritis) in breach of the Equality Act 2010, which prohibits “discrimination arising in the consequence of disability”. Millar’s claim for direct disability discrimination was dismissed by the tribunal but an alternative claim was held due to the employer failing to consider Millar for two alternative positions due to “anticipated future absences”. The tribunal found that the claimant had made out a prima facie case of discrimination i.e. that, in the absence of an explanation, it appeared that discrimination had occurred, in that the company had failed to give the claimant the chance to apply for alternative vacancies, due to her absence. On appeal, the tribunal was found to have failed to address what the employer had known of Millar’s disability and therefore was incorrect to conclude that
HRfocus
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56