Discrimination in employment law and dismissal of OCD

The most recent case of Abbey National plc. Fair brother V [2007] if the employee worked Account Manager since March 1998. The employee suffered from obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), which at the time he applied for a job has not been informed by the employer, but is clear when he took office. Since the beginning of his work, had a good relationship with colleagues. The situation changed in 2002 when two of his colleagues have begun to treat him and another employee, R, unfavorably. Since then he has been forced to its provocations of obsessive-compulsive disorder, and low activity level, mainly because of its shock. R has been abused by her experience with the amount of work and R and the employee has been sidelined. Weakened to the point where two colleagues unlawful for informational purposes only employee e-mail, even if they are all in the same office.

A week after a particularly stressful period, the employee was released July 25, 2003. He informed the Regional Director, N, and the problems that led to his departure, and began to investigate the complaint. Both men agreed that they had acted in abuse of the employee during the week, then two results No excuses this study was presented to the employee, and has promised to have a cup of tea and two of his colleagues to try to resolve their disputes. He also said that he could face a disciplinary process for 25, August 13, wrote a letter describing the events that led to his departure, but the letter did not relate to his obsessive-compulsive disorder.

After a meeting with a member of the HRC employer resources department, F, it was decided that a full investigation into the events during the week of July 21, 2003, are implemented. One month after the meeting, asked the officer that the events that preceded this week, and a study. The second application was refused by the employer. A complaint was then held to discuss allegations that the employee had been bullied at work, and that N did not conduct the preliminary investigation proper. These requests were rejected, prompting the employee to appeal the decision.

The study was conducted and all complaints that have been used and February 9, 2004, all appeals were rejected. Since then, 7 July 2004, resigned because his employer had not made a claim for a reasonable conclusion. The employee filed a complaint to an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal because it was discriminated against because of their condition. The Court stated that it had been unfairly dismissed because the appeal process for a long period, the employer had several shortcomings which mean that the employer had acted in a way that has damaged the trust between him and the employee.

The employee based on discrimination remained on the ground that the treatment he received from his colleagues had been damaging and there was no distinction between the treatment she received and the treatment received by R. The employer appealed. The employer argued that the court committed an unfair dismissal based on alleged procedural errors in the complaint.

They argued that: -

• The court did not consider whether the grievance procedure was within the range of reasonable responses available to the employer.


• The tribunal had erred in limiting its consideration of whether the employee has received treatment.


• The court should have considered whether the employee was treated less favorably.


• It was considered that the court erred in considering whether the employer’s conduct falls within the range of reasonable responses available during the investigation of employee complaints.


• The court based its decision on failure in the initial phase of the grievance procedure and the fact that these defects have been fixed as the investigation progressed, it was still a mistake to conclude that the employer had unfairly dismissed employee.