'Sick building' worker loses claim for unfair dismissal

A PERSONAL assistant, who claimed flooding at the Office of Environmental Health and Pollution Regulation caused her to collapse after an allergic reaction, has lost her appeal for unfair dismissal.

1352588_475
Diane Harding

A PERSONAL assistant, who claimed flooding at the Office of Environmental Health and Pollution Regulation caused her to collapse after an allergic reaction, has lost her appeal for unfair dismissal.

Diane Harding, 62, had argued that the failure of her employer to take her seriously after repeatedly becoming sick in the building had forced her to submit her notice.

However, the tribunal ruled little evidence had been submitted to support this claim – on one occasion Mrs Harding had refused to share medical information from one consultant with another.

‘The tribunal is of the firm opinion that this lack of transparency led to the reasonable conclusion that the applicant might be holding back evidence which did not support her own assessment of her condition,’ it said.

The tribunal said a number of steps had been taken by Mrs Harding’s employer following her reaction, including a deep clean of the room she worked in, her temporary relocation and a presentation to all staff on allergic reactions. It also highlighted there was significant evidence of loss of personal control by Mrs Harding.

Comments for: "'Sick building' worker loses claim for unfair dismissal"

Island Wide Voting

Yet another sensible conclusion from those feet on the ground tribunal people

I wonder if it would be possible for certain States department employees (I'm thinking mainly of Environment staff) to sit in on the Tribunals'private deliberations to observe how quite often a common sense approach can work wonders?

pete

I question why the tribunal cases are made public. it serves no purpose except to fuel the gossip mongers in our community to victimise the loser. the other issue is by publically shaming the loser surely it severely restricts them ever finding employment again. I question how impartial is any tribunal in Gsy?

Chunked monkey

Because these are public claims, heard in front of an independent panel in an open, transparent forum. I have looked at the tribunal summary and am amazed they allowed her to even make a claim given the lack of substantiated 'evidence' from Ms Harding. Her employers should be hauled over the coals for being far too reasonable with her in the first place. Who lets someone run out of meetings screaming and then expects them to behave professionally.

If the tribunal have commented on her lack of control you can bet this was the tip of the iceberg. The woman must have been a nightmare in the office.

Planning Watcher

Most are impartial, but not all. See Mr. Smith's planning tribunal result: http://www.gov.gg/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=83797&p=0

the original press article is here: http://www.thisisguernsey.com/news/2013/07/09/two-years-not-enough-time-to-finish-a-building-project/

An extraordinary judgement that shows that some members of the planning tribunal look as though they are in the pocket of the States. Paras. 17 to 22 say it all...jaw dropping.

BTW I don't know Mr. Smith from Adam.

amadeus

Absolutely agree with Pete.

There are many aspects of this sad ladies case that should have remained confidential.

The lady needs support and help and this sort of publicity certainly is counter productive.

crapaud

'The lady needs support and help!'

About time people started looking after themselves rather than expecting to be wet-nursed. She needs to sort herself out and stop whinging and hoping for a hand-out.