Description
In this case, the Employment Appeal Tribunal was asked to consider whether an employer should have known that an employee who had type 2 diabetes was suffering with a long-term condition and therefore should have been entitled to reasonable adjustments at work. Listen along to find out what happened!
Visit www.indicator.co.uk to explore our product range, or connect with us on social media:
Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.
Transcription
Today, in the Indicator HR and Employment Law podcast, we're discussing the judgment in the case of Cunningham and British Broadcasting Corporation, in which the Employment Appeal Tribunal was asked to consider whether an employer should have known that a worker was disabled. In this case, C was a TV presentation announcer and director for BBC Scotland, work that was based around an eight-week shift pattern covering different times of day and night. In March 2023, she informed her manager that she had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and associated fatigue. She was referred to Occupational Health and signed off for a month as unfit for work. While signed off, she requested an accommodation, stating she had difficulties with shift work due to the lack of routine, sleep disruption and irregular meal breaks. In this request, she referred to her diagnosis, describing her condition as a disability. The BBC adjusted her shift pattern by assigning her mostly daytime shifts. However, one of her regular shifts, which she agreed to do, finished at half past midnight. An occupational health report in May 2023 advised the BBC that C should remain off early and late shifts and would need regular breaks as a reasonable adjustment to ensure the symptoms associated with her diabetes did not worsen. In June 2023, C was subject to a formal disciplinary process after she was 45 seconds late starting a 60-second live news broadcast. Although no formal action was taken as a result, she found the process upsetting. C brought a failure to make reasonable adjustments claim as well as a disability discrimination claim. In defending the claims, the BBC argued that type 2 diabetes is not a disability in itself, but a preliminary hearing ruled that in this case, C's diabetes was a disability. At the relevant time, June to November 2023, there was a substantial adverse effect on her day-to-day activities from her diabetes-related fatigue, which was likely to last at least 12 months. At the subsequent full hearing, the Employment Tribunal dismissed C's claims. It found that the BBC could not reasonably have been aware of C's disability at the relevant time. Further, even if it had been, there was no failure to make reasonable adjustments, as the BBC had made reasonable adjustments and the adjustments desired by C - that being excused from all early and late shifts and having a more consistent shift pattern - were not reasonable, and there had been no disability discrimination, as there was no evidence that C's error, which triggered the disciplinary process, was caused by her disability. C appealed in relation to the reasonable adjustment finding, arguing that the tribunal had erred in failing to consider the correct factors when assessing the BBC's knowledge of her disability, and that it failed to consider the reasonable adjustments she raised, particularly whether finishing at half past midnight was a late shift and should have been subject to adjustment. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed her appeal, finding that the tribunal should have assessed what the BBC would have known, had it made reasonable inquiries, as well as what it actually knew. By June 2023 the BBC had actual knowledge of C's diabetes and that it caused substantial adverse effects on her day-to-day life in the form of exhaustion or fatigue. The Occupational Health Report advised the BBC to keep C off early and late shifts and stated that she needed regular breaks to manage her symptoms. It also stated that C's diabetes was being monitored by her doctor, that it could take several months to evaluate the effects and that medication may be required at some point. Although the BBC did not have actual knowledge that these effects were long-term for C, the Employment Appeal Tribunal noted that diabetes is known to be a long-term condition and if the BBC had needed clarification as to whether C's diabetes was long-term, it would have been reasonable to check this with Occupational Health. Had it done so, Occupational Health would inevitably have confirmed that C had a long-term condition. The Employment Appeal Tribunal concluded that a reasonable tribunal would have found that the BBC knew or ought to have known about C's disability and substituted a finding to this effect. The Employment Appeal Tribunal also found that the tribunal had erred by failing to consider whether it was a reasonable adjustment to relieve C from the shift that finished after midnight. The Occupational Health Advice and other evidence indicated that all late shifts should have been part of the adjustments made. and a further occupational health report in August confirmed that the shift in question was indeed a late shift. The Employment Appeal Tribunal sent the reasonable adjustments claim to a fresh tribunal for reconsideration. The tribunal had also erred in its assessment as to whether C's reasonable adjustments claim had been brought in time, and this is covered in a separate podcast. Look out for further episodes in this series to stay up to date on all things HR and employment law related.
Description
In this case, the Employment Appeal Tribunal was asked to consider whether an employer should have known that an employee who had type 2 diabetes was suffering with a long-term condition and therefore should have been entitled to reasonable adjustments at work. Listen along to find out what happened!
Visit www.indicator.co.uk to explore our product range, or connect with us on social media:
Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.
Transcription
Today, in the Indicator HR and Employment Law podcast, we're discussing the judgment in the case of Cunningham and British Broadcasting Corporation, in which the Employment Appeal Tribunal was asked to consider whether an employer should have known that a worker was disabled. In this case, C was a TV presentation announcer and director for BBC Scotland, work that was based around an eight-week shift pattern covering different times of day and night. In March 2023, she informed her manager that she had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and associated fatigue. She was referred to Occupational Health and signed off for a month as unfit for work. While signed off, she requested an accommodation, stating she had difficulties with shift work due to the lack of routine, sleep disruption and irregular meal breaks. In this request, she referred to her diagnosis, describing her condition as a disability. The BBC adjusted her shift pattern by assigning her mostly daytime shifts. However, one of her regular shifts, which she agreed to do, finished at half past midnight. An occupational health report in May 2023 advised the BBC that C should remain off early and late shifts and would need regular breaks as a reasonable adjustment to ensure the symptoms associated with her diabetes did not worsen. In June 2023, C was subject to a formal disciplinary process after she was 45 seconds late starting a 60-second live news broadcast. Although no formal action was taken as a result, she found the process upsetting. C brought a failure to make reasonable adjustments claim as well as a disability discrimination claim. In defending the claims, the BBC argued that type 2 diabetes is not a disability in itself, but a preliminary hearing ruled that in this case, C's diabetes was a disability. At the relevant time, June to November 2023, there was a substantial adverse effect on her day-to-day activities from her diabetes-related fatigue, which was likely to last at least 12 months. At the subsequent full hearing, the Employment Tribunal dismissed C's claims. It found that the BBC could not reasonably have been aware of C's disability at the relevant time. Further, even if it had been, there was no failure to make reasonable adjustments, as the BBC had made reasonable adjustments and the adjustments desired by C - that being excused from all early and late shifts and having a more consistent shift pattern - were not reasonable, and there had been no disability discrimination, as there was no evidence that C's error, which triggered the disciplinary process, was caused by her disability. C appealed in relation to the reasonable adjustment finding, arguing that the tribunal had erred in failing to consider the correct factors when assessing the BBC's knowledge of her disability, and that it failed to consider the reasonable adjustments she raised, particularly whether finishing at half past midnight was a late shift and should have been subject to adjustment. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed her appeal, finding that the tribunal should have assessed what the BBC would have known, had it made reasonable inquiries, as well as what it actually knew. By June 2023 the BBC had actual knowledge of C's diabetes and that it caused substantial adverse effects on her day-to-day life in the form of exhaustion or fatigue. The Occupational Health Report advised the BBC to keep C off early and late shifts and stated that she needed regular breaks to manage her symptoms. It also stated that C's diabetes was being monitored by her doctor, that it could take several months to evaluate the effects and that medication may be required at some point. Although the BBC did not have actual knowledge that these effects were long-term for C, the Employment Appeal Tribunal noted that diabetes is known to be a long-term condition and if the BBC had needed clarification as to whether C's diabetes was long-term, it would have been reasonable to check this with Occupational Health. Had it done so, Occupational Health would inevitably have confirmed that C had a long-term condition. The Employment Appeal Tribunal concluded that a reasonable tribunal would have found that the BBC knew or ought to have known about C's disability and substituted a finding to this effect. The Employment Appeal Tribunal also found that the tribunal had erred by failing to consider whether it was a reasonable adjustment to relieve C from the shift that finished after midnight. The Occupational Health Advice and other evidence indicated that all late shifts should have been part of the adjustments made. and a further occupational health report in August confirmed that the shift in question was indeed a late shift. The Employment Appeal Tribunal sent the reasonable adjustments claim to a fresh tribunal for reconsideration. The tribunal had also erred in its assessment as to whether C's reasonable adjustments claim had been brought in time, and this is covered in a separate podcast. Look out for further episodes in this series to stay up to date on all things HR and employment law related.
Share
Embed
You may also like
Description
In this case, the Employment Appeal Tribunal was asked to consider whether an employer should have known that an employee who had type 2 diabetes was suffering with a long-term condition and therefore should have been entitled to reasonable adjustments at work. Listen along to find out what happened!
Visit www.indicator.co.uk to explore our product range, or connect with us on social media:
Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.
Transcription
Today, in the Indicator HR and Employment Law podcast, we're discussing the judgment in the case of Cunningham and British Broadcasting Corporation, in which the Employment Appeal Tribunal was asked to consider whether an employer should have known that a worker was disabled. In this case, C was a TV presentation announcer and director for BBC Scotland, work that was based around an eight-week shift pattern covering different times of day and night. In March 2023, she informed her manager that she had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and associated fatigue. She was referred to Occupational Health and signed off for a month as unfit for work. While signed off, she requested an accommodation, stating she had difficulties with shift work due to the lack of routine, sleep disruption and irregular meal breaks. In this request, she referred to her diagnosis, describing her condition as a disability. The BBC adjusted her shift pattern by assigning her mostly daytime shifts. However, one of her regular shifts, which she agreed to do, finished at half past midnight. An occupational health report in May 2023 advised the BBC that C should remain off early and late shifts and would need regular breaks as a reasonable adjustment to ensure the symptoms associated with her diabetes did not worsen. In June 2023, C was subject to a formal disciplinary process after she was 45 seconds late starting a 60-second live news broadcast. Although no formal action was taken as a result, she found the process upsetting. C brought a failure to make reasonable adjustments claim as well as a disability discrimination claim. In defending the claims, the BBC argued that type 2 diabetes is not a disability in itself, but a preliminary hearing ruled that in this case, C's diabetes was a disability. At the relevant time, June to November 2023, there was a substantial adverse effect on her day-to-day activities from her diabetes-related fatigue, which was likely to last at least 12 months. At the subsequent full hearing, the Employment Tribunal dismissed C's claims. It found that the BBC could not reasonably have been aware of C's disability at the relevant time. Further, even if it had been, there was no failure to make reasonable adjustments, as the BBC had made reasonable adjustments and the adjustments desired by C - that being excused from all early and late shifts and having a more consistent shift pattern - were not reasonable, and there had been no disability discrimination, as there was no evidence that C's error, which triggered the disciplinary process, was caused by her disability. C appealed in relation to the reasonable adjustment finding, arguing that the tribunal had erred in failing to consider the correct factors when assessing the BBC's knowledge of her disability, and that it failed to consider the reasonable adjustments she raised, particularly whether finishing at half past midnight was a late shift and should have been subject to adjustment. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed her appeal, finding that the tribunal should have assessed what the BBC would have known, had it made reasonable inquiries, as well as what it actually knew. By June 2023 the BBC had actual knowledge of C's diabetes and that it caused substantial adverse effects on her day-to-day life in the form of exhaustion or fatigue. The Occupational Health Report advised the BBC to keep C off early and late shifts and stated that she needed regular breaks to manage her symptoms. It also stated that C's diabetes was being monitored by her doctor, that it could take several months to evaluate the effects and that medication may be required at some point. Although the BBC did not have actual knowledge that these effects were long-term for C, the Employment Appeal Tribunal noted that diabetes is known to be a long-term condition and if the BBC had needed clarification as to whether C's diabetes was long-term, it would have been reasonable to check this with Occupational Health. Had it done so, Occupational Health would inevitably have confirmed that C had a long-term condition. The Employment Appeal Tribunal concluded that a reasonable tribunal would have found that the BBC knew or ought to have known about C's disability and substituted a finding to this effect. The Employment Appeal Tribunal also found that the tribunal had erred by failing to consider whether it was a reasonable adjustment to relieve C from the shift that finished after midnight. The Occupational Health Advice and other evidence indicated that all late shifts should have been part of the adjustments made. and a further occupational health report in August confirmed that the shift in question was indeed a late shift. The Employment Appeal Tribunal sent the reasonable adjustments claim to a fresh tribunal for reconsideration. The tribunal had also erred in its assessment as to whether C's reasonable adjustments claim had been brought in time, and this is covered in a separate podcast. Look out for further episodes in this series to stay up to date on all things HR and employment law related.
Description
In this case, the Employment Appeal Tribunal was asked to consider whether an employer should have known that an employee who had type 2 diabetes was suffering with a long-term condition and therefore should have been entitled to reasonable adjustments at work. Listen along to find out what happened!
Visit www.indicator.co.uk to explore our product range, or connect with us on social media:
Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.
Transcription
Today, in the Indicator HR and Employment Law podcast, we're discussing the judgment in the case of Cunningham and British Broadcasting Corporation, in which the Employment Appeal Tribunal was asked to consider whether an employer should have known that a worker was disabled. In this case, C was a TV presentation announcer and director for BBC Scotland, work that was based around an eight-week shift pattern covering different times of day and night. In March 2023, she informed her manager that she had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and associated fatigue. She was referred to Occupational Health and signed off for a month as unfit for work. While signed off, she requested an accommodation, stating she had difficulties with shift work due to the lack of routine, sleep disruption and irregular meal breaks. In this request, she referred to her diagnosis, describing her condition as a disability. The BBC adjusted her shift pattern by assigning her mostly daytime shifts. However, one of her regular shifts, which she agreed to do, finished at half past midnight. An occupational health report in May 2023 advised the BBC that C should remain off early and late shifts and would need regular breaks as a reasonable adjustment to ensure the symptoms associated with her diabetes did not worsen. In June 2023, C was subject to a formal disciplinary process after she was 45 seconds late starting a 60-second live news broadcast. Although no formal action was taken as a result, she found the process upsetting. C brought a failure to make reasonable adjustments claim as well as a disability discrimination claim. In defending the claims, the BBC argued that type 2 diabetes is not a disability in itself, but a preliminary hearing ruled that in this case, C's diabetes was a disability. At the relevant time, June to November 2023, there was a substantial adverse effect on her day-to-day activities from her diabetes-related fatigue, which was likely to last at least 12 months. At the subsequent full hearing, the Employment Tribunal dismissed C's claims. It found that the BBC could not reasonably have been aware of C's disability at the relevant time. Further, even if it had been, there was no failure to make reasonable adjustments, as the BBC had made reasonable adjustments and the adjustments desired by C - that being excused from all early and late shifts and having a more consistent shift pattern - were not reasonable, and there had been no disability discrimination, as there was no evidence that C's error, which triggered the disciplinary process, was caused by her disability. C appealed in relation to the reasonable adjustment finding, arguing that the tribunal had erred in failing to consider the correct factors when assessing the BBC's knowledge of her disability, and that it failed to consider the reasonable adjustments she raised, particularly whether finishing at half past midnight was a late shift and should have been subject to adjustment. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed her appeal, finding that the tribunal should have assessed what the BBC would have known, had it made reasonable inquiries, as well as what it actually knew. By June 2023 the BBC had actual knowledge of C's diabetes and that it caused substantial adverse effects on her day-to-day life in the form of exhaustion or fatigue. The Occupational Health Report advised the BBC to keep C off early and late shifts and stated that she needed regular breaks to manage her symptoms. It also stated that C's diabetes was being monitored by her doctor, that it could take several months to evaluate the effects and that medication may be required at some point. Although the BBC did not have actual knowledge that these effects were long-term for C, the Employment Appeal Tribunal noted that diabetes is known to be a long-term condition and if the BBC had needed clarification as to whether C's diabetes was long-term, it would have been reasonable to check this with Occupational Health. Had it done so, Occupational Health would inevitably have confirmed that C had a long-term condition. The Employment Appeal Tribunal concluded that a reasonable tribunal would have found that the BBC knew or ought to have known about C's disability and substituted a finding to this effect. The Employment Appeal Tribunal also found that the tribunal had erred by failing to consider whether it was a reasonable adjustment to relieve C from the shift that finished after midnight. The Occupational Health Advice and other evidence indicated that all late shifts should have been part of the adjustments made. and a further occupational health report in August confirmed that the shift in question was indeed a late shift. The Employment Appeal Tribunal sent the reasonable adjustments claim to a fresh tribunal for reconsideration. The tribunal had also erred in its assessment as to whether C's reasonable adjustments claim had been brought in time, and this is covered in a separate podcast. Look out for further episodes in this series to stay up to date on all things HR and employment law related.
Share
Embed
You may also like
