Michelle Proctor vs Haxby Group practice [2018]
Decision Number:
Published on: 23/01/2019
Issues Covered:
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Background

The claimant worked as a clerical assistance in the respondent GP practice. She suffered arthritis in both hands and tendonitis of the wrist and arms and there was no dispute that she was ‘disabled’.

The claimant’s workload increased which resulted in increased pain and she had to take sick leave. A letter from occupational health recommended that voice recognition software should be installed to better manage her condition. She requested a demonstration of the software, but the respondent insisted that this would take place when she returned from sick leave and not before. The software was eventually installed, but only after a period of two years in which the claimant took numerous periods of sick leave.

It was suggested that the claimant switch to a flexible working arrangement, but she was informed that she would lose her sick pay entitlement. The claimant raised a grievance stating that the respondent had failed to make reasonable adjustments and she eventually resigned. The tribunal allowed the claim, citing the ‘prolonged failure to make reasonable adjustments’ which also led to unlawful discrimination.

Practical Lessons

Another reasonable adjustments case - factually, however, this case is quite unique in that it was left entirely to the claimant to research the sort of support mechanisms that would help her return to work. Indeed, not only did she make all enquiries into the voice recognition software, but she was also expected to research and apply for relevant grants to fund it.

The respondent’s failure to implement the reasonable adjustment in a timely manner amounted to a fundamental breach of the contract of employment. That is not to say that the claimant could not have had a central role in ensuring the equipment was suitable. The problem was that the employer had shunned its own responsibilities and was not alert to the delays which directly led to a deterioration in the claimant’s condition.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c3c64b740f0b67c69b4a6b6/Mrs_M_Procter_v_Haxby_Group_Practice_and_John_James_McEvoy_-_1801602.2017_and_1806299.2017_-_Remedy.pdf

Continue reading

We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.

Already a subscriber?

Please log in to view the full article.

What you'll get:

  • Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
  • Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
  • 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
  • Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team

Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial

Disclaimer The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article. This article is correct at 23/01/2019