Was the Dismissal of Miss Akhtar During Health Issues Fair or Unjust?

The case of Miss Akhtar, a software developer dismissed from her job at Calrom, a Cheshire-based company, raises significant questions about employee rights, employer responsibilities, and the impact of health on workplace dynamics. The Manchester employment tribunal deemed her dismissal unfair, highlighting the complexities introduced by the Covid-19 pandemic and prolonged health issues.

Miss Akhtar’s Employment and Initial Health Issues

Early Employment and Health Concerns

Miss Akhtar began her tenure at Calrom in 2017 as a .NET developer. Early on, in 2019, she faced a dispute regarding her seating preference in the office due to her health condition. Suffering from anemia and dizzy spells, she preferred to be seated near an open window. Her request was a precursor to the more significant health challenges she would face, setting the stage for her ongoing struggle to balance work commitments with physical well-being.

This instance marked the beginning of a pattern in which Akhtar needed workplace accommodations to cope with her health. Calrom’s initial response to her seating preference might have been seen as a litmus test for how the company would handle her future needs. This situation opened a dialogue about the necessity for employers to be sensitive and responsive to the medical conditions of their employees, particularly in roles demanding high cognitive and physical functionality.

Health Scare and Accommodations

On January 31, 2020, Miss Akhtar experienced a significant health scare, described as a “near-faint episode” or “panic attack,” necessitating paramedics’ intervention but not resulting in hospital admission. Given the seriousness of the incident, she was advised to visit her general practitioner (GP) for further evaluation. Upon her return to work on February 20, Akhtar was provided with accommodations such as a Dyson fan to address her discomfort and claustrophobic feelings in the office. This intervention showcased Calrom’s willingness to make adjustments to foster a supportive work environment.

Despite these measures, the episode highlighted the fragility of Akhtar’s health and the ongoing need for consideration and management. Her condition spurred discussions about how businesses can and should adapt to meet the needs of employees facing chronic or acute health challenges. These internal conversations at Calrom likely influenced future decisions, playing a crucial role in the unfolding events that would ultimately lead to her dismissal.

Impact of the Covid-19 Pandemic

Furlough and Career Break Requests

The Covid-19 pandemic brought further complications when Calrom had to furlough most of its employees on April 1, 2020, including Akhtar. By July 2020, as the company started to bring selected employees back to the office, Akhtar requested an extension of her furlough until October 2020, citing her weak health. She also sought a career break if her request was not granted. The pandemic not only exacerbated Akhtar’s health challenges but also introduced new layers of complexity into employment decisions, making it a multifaceted issue for both employee and employer.

Calrom approved her request, with the career break starting on August 21, 2020, initially meant to end on January 31, 2021. During this period, Akhtar traveled to Pakistan to stay with her family, believing it would provide the necessary support for her recovery. Her absence from the workplace during such a turbulent time highlighted the broader impacts of the pandemic on employee well-being and organizational operations, illustrating the far-reaching consequences of global health crises on individual careers.

Extensions and Health Challenges

Akhtar’s career break was extended multiple times at her request, first to May 2021 to complete an online language course and then to January 2022 due to health reasons. Each extension came with warnings from Calrom about the unlikelihood of further extensions and the need for re-training upon her return. These repeated extensions reflected the ongoing nature of Akhtar’s health struggles and Calrom’s attempt to balance empathy with operational needs. However, it also created a sense of uncertainty and insecurity about her long-term employment status.

The extended breaks underscored the importance of clear communication and the necessity for both parties to manage expectations. Akhtar’s health issues presented ongoing challenges, necessitating continuous adjustments and accommodations. The company’s responses, while accommodating, were increasingly marked by concerns over the practical implications of such extended absences, reflecting the difficult balancing act between employee support and business continuity.

The Final Extension and Dismissal

Persistent Health Issues and Proposed Solutions

As January 2022 approached, Akhtar informed her employer of her persistent health issues, including another panic attack in October 2021. She mentioned she was about to begin cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) treatment, which could take six to twelve weeks. Understanding the complexity of her situation, she proposed two potential solutions: work from home (from Pakistan) until her health improved enough for her to return to the UK, or consider any other suggestions from Calrom. Akhtar’s proposals were an effort to maintain her employment while managing her health issues.

She acknowledged that working from Pakistan might come with challenges like internet connectivity issues, limited infrastructure, and electricity downtimes, given the small town she lived in. Working from Lahore was not an option due to her lack of relatives there, highlighting that her stay in Pakistan was primarily for family support. Her suggestions aimed to offer flexible alternatives that would allow her to continue her role without compromising her recovery, thus presenting a case for remote work as a viable solution in health-related employment issues.

Employer’s Response and Final Extension

Lorraine Astbury, Calrom’s chief HR officer, acknowledged these difficulties and agreed to a final extension of Akhtar’s career break until August 31, 2022, cautioning that this would be the last extension. Akhtar communicated in July 2022 that she appeared to be in a better place health-wise and anticipated returning to the UK by mid-August to resume her work. However, as her return date approached, she reported feeling increasingly unwell and unable to travel alone. This turn of events further complicated the situation, emphasizing the unpredictable nature of health recovery.

Despite expressing her improved condition earlier, Akhtar’s delayed return illustrated the practical challenges of managing chronic health issues while trying to comply with employment obligations. Calrom, on its part, had to contend with the operational disruptions caused by her prolonged absence, making it imperative to review her situation critically. The company’s response to the evolving circumstances ultimately shaped the tribunal’s findings and influenced their decision regarding the fairness of her dismissal.

Tribunal’s Findings and Decision

Internal Discussions and Notification Delay

Calrom conducted internal discussions and decided to inform Akhtar via email that her career break would not be extended further. However, this email was deliberately delayed until the end of the following week as the chief technology officer, Simon Wilkins, preferred to avoid a prolonged debate with Akhtar. The tribunal found that this delay was significant because by the time Akhtar was informed, any slim chance she might have had to make travel arrangements would have been lost, making her return to work impossible.

The timing of the notification was a critical factor in the tribunal’s findings, emphasizing the duty of employers to communicate decisively and promptly with their employees. Calrom’s internal decision-making process and the subsequent delay in notification underscored the complications that can arise when there’s a lack of timely and transparent communication. The tribunal highlighted that such delays can have significant consequences for the employee, particularly in cases where returning to work requires substantial time and logistical arrangements.

Tribunal’s Conclusion on Unfair Dismissal

The tribunal concluded that Akhtar’s dismissal was inevitable due to the timing of the notification about her career break’s end, rendering it “impossible for the claimant to comply.” The day before she was due back at work, Akhtar was dismissed. Employment Judge Helen Cookson noted that Calrom failed to consider alternative measures to dismissal and did not adequately explain their concerns to Akhtar. This decision reflected a broader principle about the necessary procedural fairness and reasonable accommodations in employment practices.

The tribunal’s ruling underscored the importance of following fair procedures and considering all possible alternatives before proceeding with dismissal, particularly in cases involving health issues. The tribunal deemed the approach adopted by Calrom as fundamentally unfair, leading to the conclusion that Akhtar’s dismissal was unjust. Her claim of unfair dismissal succeeded, although claims of disability discrimination were dismissed. Compensation was to be determined later, taking into account the likelihood of her dismissal even if fair procedures had been followed and examining if it would be just and equitable to adjust the amount payable.

Employer’s Responsibilities and Procedural Fairness

Reasonable Accommodations and Communication

The tribunal stated that while the employer had valid reasons to doubt the feasibility of Akhtar’s proposal to work from home in Pakistan, a reasonable employer would have explained those concerns, allowing Akhtar to address them or propose other solutions. Possible alternative solutions could have included allowing Akhtar to use her accumulated holiday time to facilitate her return to the UK. This expectation underlined the importance of exploring all possible measures to accommodate employees before making the final decision to dismiss.

Employers are tasked with the responsibility of not only acknowledging but also addressing the specific needs of their employees, particularly when health issues are involved. Clear, empathetic communication is crucial in ensuring that employees feel supported and understood, which can significantly impact their recovery and eventual return to work. This obligation extends to providing detailed explanations for any decisions made and an openness to exploring various accommodations to meet the employee’s needs.

Importance of Fair Dismissal Practices

The case of Miss Akhtar, a software developer fired from her position at Calrom, a company based in Cheshire, brings up substantial issues regarding employee rights, employer responsibilities, and the influence of health on workplace relations. The employment tribunal in Manchester determined that her termination was unjust, spotlighting the intricate challenges posed by the Covid-19 pandemic and extended health problems. This case underscores the importance of understanding how health crises affect both employees and employers. With the unprecedented changes brought by the pandemic, businesses are grappling with new norms and expectations surrounding employee well-being. Employers must balance operational needs with compassion and legal obligations, ensuring that health issues are managed fairly. Miss Akhtar’s case serves as a reminder of the critical need for clear policies and empathetic approaches in handling health-related employment matters during these challenging times. This incident emphasizes the evolving dynamics of the workplace in today’s health-conscious world.

Explore more