Cases3306406/2022

Claimant v East & North Hertfordshire NHS Trust

3 October 2024Before Employment Judge YoungWatfordin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Detrimentfailed

The tribunal found that the sickness absence meetings scheduled for 26 January 2022 and 12 April 2022 were not disciplinary meetings under section 10 Employment Relations Act 1999. The tribunal accepted that the meetings were supportive in nature, intended to discuss the claimant's health and return to work, and that the line manager had no power to impose sanctions. The claimant's own evidence demonstrated she did not consider them disciplinary meetings. Therefore, the statutory right to be accompanied by a representative of choice did not apply, and the respondent's refusal to allow a non-accredited union representative was lawful.

Facts

The claimant, a clinical support worker, developed long covid from January 2021 and was off sick. Her line manager invited her to routine long-term sickness absence meetings on 26 January 2022 and 12 April 2022. The claimant had joined the Workers of England Union (WEU) and wanted a WEU representative to accompany her. The respondent NHS Trust refused, stating only accredited unions could provide representatives. The claimant raised a grievance claiming breach of her statutory right to be accompanied under s.10 Employment Relations Act 1999. She argued the sickness absence meetings were disciplinary meetings. Neither meeting proceeded on those dates; a later meeting in August 2022 allowed her WEU representative to attend.

Decision

The tribunal found the sickness absence meetings were not disciplinary or grievance meetings under s.10 ErA 1999. They were supportive meetings to discuss the claimant's health and return to work, with no power vested in the line manager to impose sanctions. The claimant's own evidence showed she did not consider them disciplinary. The claim was dismissed. The tribunal awarded costs of £14,123.59 against the claimant for unreasonably pursuing a claim with no prospects, noting she had been warned by deposit order in December 2022 and submitted a schedule of loss seeking £88k when the maximum award was under £700.

Practical note

Routine sickness absence review meetings intended to support an employee's return to work are not 'disciplinary hearings' under the Employment Relations Act 1999 even if they might eventually lead to consideration of dismissal, unless the meeting itself could result in a sanction or warning.

Legal authorities cited

Yerrakalva v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council [2012] ICR 420London Underground Ltd v Ferenc-Batchelor [2003] ICR 656Heathmill Multimedia ASP Ltd v Jones [2003] IRLR 857McPherson v BNP Paribas (London Branch) [2004] ICR 1398

Statutes

Employment Relations Act 1999 s.10Employment Relations Act 1999 s.11Employment Relations Act 1999 s.13(4)

Case details

Case number
3306406/2022
Decision date
3 October 2024
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
2
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Clinical support worker
Service
3 years

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister