In the case of Mr J M v Astra Zeneca UK Limited Dr JM began working for Astra Zeneca in January 1998. He was an associate principal scientist who reported to Mr AW, one of the directors. Dr JM also had a mental health disability due to depression and anxiety disorder.
In July 2020, Mr AW contacted HR about “potential bullying and harassment in the workplace”. As a result, the HR manager appointed Mr MB as the investigating officer.
Mr MB found that those complaints had been made by three of Dr JM’s colleagues. Their complaints related to “poorly worded emails, raised voices and difficulties working together”.
Mr AW contacted Mr MB, asking whether Dr JM should be made aware of the allegations. The investigating officer responded, advising not to mention the complaints yet, with concerns about stressing Dr JM unnecessarily. The tribunal highlighted that this showed the respondent’s awareness of Dr JM’s mental health disability.
Mr MB opted for the ‘employee improvement policy’, which enabled disciplinary action up to dismissal for gross misconduct. Under the policy, such misconduct included “bullying and harassment”.
However, the tribunal learned the employees didn’t raise formal complaints, meaning they didn’t comply with company policy. Furthermore, they found Mr MB had failed to consider if an informal approach could have resolved the matter.
Following investigations, Mr MB provided HR with a report and determined the matter should proceed to an ‘improvement hearing’, believing Dr JM’s conduct amounted to bullying and harassment. Several concerns were raised by Dr JM, but no further action was taken.
The tribunal acknowledged Mr MB’s efforts regarding his detailed report. However, they believed “he displayed a lack of curiosity” concerning matters discussed during interviews. They reasoned, during a witness interview, that the AstraZeneca scientist was described as “a broken individual”. The tribunal explained how this was another reference to Dr Muir’s mental health disability without appropriate action being taken.
Mr MB was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.
The tribunal discussed how medical reports had shown that Dr JM’s disability could affect his work. It highlighted how his disability could have a “detrimental impact on his interactions”, making him unaware of how he came across to colleagues.
The tribunal held that Dr JM’s behaviour was the reason for his dismissal but didn’t believe proportionate measures were taken.
They reasoned preventative steps could have been established earlier to minimise the impact of Dr JM’s mental health disability on colleagues. Furthermore, since the respondents had known of his disability from at least January 2019, they should have acted accordingly and supported him. Because this wasn’t the case, they ruled Dr JM had faced disability discrimination and had been unfairly dismissed. The case will proceed to a remedy hearing.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
