Disability Discrimination Well-Founded

[brothermagrew]

Link to the Employment Tribunal Judgement Mr S Callaway (Claimant) (Respondent) Royal Mail Group Ltd.

http://21.enable.com/rubenstein/getfile ... :16:8Bl:DC" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The unanimous judgment of the Tribunal is that the claim of disability discrimination is well-founded.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

This jumped out at me - page 17

How it is that management think they know better than the medical profession or that the doctors and nurses had been hoodwinked by the claimant defeats us

Where have we heard that before......

[fishtank]

If the Government is serious about punishing vexatious claims it should also look at punishing vexatious defences.
This case was obviously well-founded from start to finish and the fact that Royal Mail choose to fight it shows a level of belligerence and arrogance that should not have been allowed to stand.
Are they simply playing the odds...paying no regard to the merits of the case?
You better believe they are.

[Dee Plish]

And this on P12...

Our starting point factually is lhe middle of 2008 by which time problems had arisen. He was referred to the occupational health advisors contracted to the respondent called ATOS. Ms Valerie Snowball an
occupational health advisor did a report on 6 June, which was not originally put in our
bundle. It was sent to a manager Mr Andy Craig who saw the claimant on 10 June. Mr
Craig was not happy with what the report said. This is the first of many attempts by
managers of the respondent to "adjust" ATOS' advice so that it reads as they want it to
read.

[Dee Plish]

P 18...

Mr Purvis explained Royal Mail contracted with ATOS to provide independent
occupational health advice and when taken to certain pages, particularly Mr Guy's
communication with ATOS at page 65 and a later communication with another manager
at page 160, he said it did give him cause for concern that managers appeared to be
trying to tell ATOS what to write. He said he"would not like to think" managers were
trying to manipulate the situation. Neither would we like to think it, but the documents
show they probably were.

This 'attitude' and utter ignorance of disability issues from managers is so easily recognisable wherever in the land you work for RM. There has been a case on our patch (no names etc) where the CWU were about to take RM to an employment tribunal following a failed grievance claim regarding a members disability issues. The manager responsible in the first instance and the DIM would have got slaughtered should such a hearing have taken place. When it reached sector / Area level, the grievance was upheld to avoid this. As ever, RM managers think they are above the company's disability rules (guided by Law) and the Law itself. Arseholes.