| The recent case of Fairbrother v Abbey National plc | | | | against due to her condition. |
| [2007], concerned an employee who was employed | | | | The tribunal held that she had been unfairly dismissed |
| as a customer manager since March 1998. The | | | | due to the fact that the employer's lengthy |
| employee suffered from Obsessive Compulsive | | | | grievance procedure had a number of serious flaws |
| Disorder (OCD), a fact which at the time when she | | | | which meant that the employer had behaved in a |
| applied for the job was not made known to the | | | | way which irreparably damaged the relationship of |
| employer, but which became clear after she took up | | | | mutual trust and confidence between it and the |
| her position. For the initial period of her employment, | | | | employee. The employee's discrimination claim was |
| she had a good relationship with her colleagues. | | | | upheld on the grounds that the treatment she had |
| However, this changed in 2002 when two of her | | | | received from her colleagues had been detrimental |
| co-workers began to treat her and another | | | | and that there was a distinction between the |
| employee, R, less favourably. | | | | treatment which she had received and the treatment |
| From then on she was subjected to taunts | | | | received by R. The employer then appealed. |
| concerning her OCD and low-level behaviour which | | | | The employer submitted that the employment |
| was principally designed to upset her condition. R was | | | | tribunal had erred in finding unfair dismissal based on |
| taunted about her perceived low work-rate, and both | | | | the alleged flaws in its grievance procedure. They |
| R and the employee were ostracised. The situation | | | | argued that:- |
| deteriorated to the point where the two offending | | | | § The tribunal had failed to consider whether |
| colleagues only communicated with the employee by | | | | the grievance procedure was within the range of |
| e-mail, despite them all being in the same office. | | | | reasonable responses available to the employer. |
| Following a particularly stressful week, the employee | | | | § The tribunal had been wrong to confine their |
| walked out on 25th July 2003. She informed the area | | | | considerations to the question of whether or not the |
| manager, N, about the problems which had led to her | | | | employee had received different treatment; and |
| leaving, and he began to investigate the complaint. | | | | § The tribunal should have considered whether |
| The two colleagues accepted that they had behaved | | | | or not the employee had received less favourable |
| in an inappropriate manner towards the employee | | | | treatment. |
| during that week, and then both apologised to N. This | | | | The appeal was allowed. |
| outcome of the investigation was passed on to the | | | | § It was held that the tribunal had erred by |
| employee, and she was advised that she should | | | | failing to consider whether the employer's conduct |
| arrange to have 'a cup of tea' with her two | | | | had fallen within the range of reasonable responses |
| colleagues to try to resolve their differences. She | | | | available to it when investigating the employee's |
| was also told she could have faced a disciplinary | | | | complaints. |
| hearing for walking out on the 25th. On 13 August, | | | | § The tribunal had based its decision upon flaws |
| she wrote a letter to N outlining the events which led | | | | found in the initial stage of the grievance procedure |
| to her walking out, but the letter made no reference | | | | and despite the fact that these flaws had been |
| to her OCD. | | | | corrected as the investigation went on, it had still |
| Following a meeting with a member of the employer's | | | | erroneously found that the employer had unfairly |
| human resources department, F, it was decided that | | | | dismissed the employee. |
| a full investigation of the events occurring in the | | | | § In addition to this, the evidence before the |
| week of the 21st July 2003 should be undertaken. A | | | | tribunal, including evidence that R had suffered similar |
| month after that meeting, the employee asked to | | | | treatment to that complained of by the employee, |
| have the events prior that week investigated as well. | | | | showed that the relationship between the employee |
| This second request was denied by the employer. A | | | | and the two offending colleagues had broken down, |
| grievance meeting was then held to discuss the | | | | and so the behaviour was not related to her OCD. |
| employee's allegations that she had been bullied at | | | | § In those circumstances, the tribunal should not |
| work and that N had not conducted the initial | | | | have allowed the employee's disability discrimination |
| investigation properly. These complaints were | | | | claim. |
| dismissed, which led to the employee to appeal | | | | Therefore the employee's claims were dismissed. |
| against this decision. | | | | If you require further information please contact us |
| An investigation was then carried out of all the | | | | at or Visit |
| complaints that made by the employee and, on 9 | | | | © RT COOPERS, 2007. This Briefing Note does |
| February 2004, all her complaints were dismissed. | | | | not provide a comprehensive or complete statement |
| Subsequently, on 7July 2004, she resigned on the | | | | of the law relating to the issues discussed nor does it |
| grounds that her employer had failed to bring her | | | | constitute legal advice. It is intended only to highlight |
| grievances to a reasonable conclusion. The employee | | | | general issues. Specialist legal advice should always be |
| then brought a claim before the employment tribunal | | | | sought in relation to particular circumstances. |
| for unfair dismissal in that she had been discriminated | | | | |