Home | News | Cleaner accused of ‘throwing a sicky’ was unfairly dismissed

Cleaner accused of ‘throwing a sicky’ was unfairly dismissed

April 28th 2021
 

The Employment Tribunal has ruled that a cleaner was unfairly dismissed after she resigned because her employer accusing her of lying about her illness.

Joanne Stronach Director & Head of Employment and HR reports on this recent case.

The case involved Pamela Wynn Newcombe, who was employed by Machynlleth Town Council from 2013 to 2019.

In 2017, she became involved in a dispute over plans to alter her working hours. Her union representative pursued the matter but didn’t receive a reply to his communications. 

Eventually the town clerk, Mr J Griffiths, alleged that Newcombe had made derogatory posts on social media including that she was not sorry to have left work early to have a Friday evening out.

Griffiths said Newcombe had been ill for a week but was “miraculously better on a Friday night and was seen by all out on a bender”.

When Newcombe noticed a question mark next to her medical absence on the sign in sheet she made a new complaint of bullying.

However, Griffiths responded by telling the union representative that Newcombe was “notorious for throwing a sicky”.

Newcombe began to suffer from anxiety due to the accusations and took time off work. She had a meeting with Griffiths and said she would be willing to get documentation from her doctor.

Griffiths wrote to the doctor and accused Newcombe of being dishonest and that any stress she was suffering was due to her relationship with her partner.

The council contacted an occupational health provider who spoke to Newcombe and concluded that her stress and absence were due to workplace issues.

The health provider recommended mediation, but the council invited Newcombe to a medical capability hearing and let her know it could lead to her dismissal.

Before the hearing took place, Newcombe’s doctor told her about Griffiths’ letter. She filed a grievance with an external HR advisor, but no action was taken against Griffiths.

Newcombe was invited to more hearings and reviews of her “full history of work-related stress” but didn’t attend due to poor health and the fact the meetings were called at short notice.

Newcombe handed in her resignation and brought a claim of unfair dismissal against the council.

The Tribunal ruled in her favour. Judge Powell said: “There was an intentional blocking of [Newcombe’s] complaints by the senior manager and an unwillingness to allow her to express them as a cause of her stress and anxiety.”

He added that the council’s actions “amounted to a cumulative repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence”.

Newcombe was awarded £11,606 compensation to cover her loss of earnings and loss of statutory rights.

If you would like more information about the issues raised in this article or any aspect of employment law please contact Joanne on 01228 516666 or click here to send her an email.

Share on Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email
We'll call you...
 
This website uses cookies
This site uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience. We use necessary cookies to make sure that our website works. We’d also like to set analytics cookies that help us make improvements by measuring how you use the site. By clicking “Allow All”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyse site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts.
These cookies are required for basic functionalities such as accessing secure areas of the website, remembering previous actions and facilitating the proper display of the website. Necessary cookies are often exempt from requiring user consent as they do not collect personal data and are crucial for the website to perform its core functions.
A “preferences” cookie is used to remember user preferences and settings on a website. These cookies enhance the user experience by allowing the website to remember choices such as language preferences, font size, layout customization, and other similar settings. Preference cookies are not strictly necessary for the basic functioning of the website but contribute to a more personalised and convenient browsing experience for users.
A “statistics” cookie typically refers to cookies that are used to collect anonymous data about how visitors interact with a website. These cookies help website owners understand how users navigate their site, which pages are most frequently visited, how long users spend on each page, and similar metrics. The data collected by statistics cookies is aggregated and anonymized, meaning it does not contain personally identifiable information (PII).
Marketing cookies are used to track user behaviour across websites, allowing advertisers to deliver targeted advertisements based on the user’s interests and preferences. These cookies collect data such as browsing history and interactions with ads to create user profiles. While essential for effective online advertising, obtaining user consent is crucial to comply with privacy regulations.