In the case of Ms J C v Dignity Funerals Limited an Aberdeen funeral director has been awarded over £60,000 in compensation after an employment tribunal ruled that she was unfairly dismissed for being unable to fulfil on-call duties following cancer treatment.
Ms JC, a former employee of Dignity Funerals, was found to have been discriminated against after her return-to-work post-chemotherapy and radiotherapy. The Tribunal determined that the company failed to provide her with adequate opportunity to resume her full responsibilities. Ms JC described her role as her “dream job.”
Ms JC began her career as a trainee funeral director in 2014 with Aberdeen Funeral Directors and was later promoted to funeral director. However, in January 2016, she was diagnosed with cancer and required intensive treatment, leading to a long-term absence. During her absence, Dignity, one of the UK’s largest funeral service providers, acquired the company.
Returning to work in January 2018, Ms JC initially worked reduced hours—three days a week, with three-hour shifts. Due to the lingering effects of her treatment, she was unable to take on-call shifts or perform heavy lifting, including moving bodies, citing fatigue caused by chemotherapy and radiotherapy.
In April, an occupational health report highlighted that her phased return to work was creating “operational and financial challenges” for the business. However, rather than putting a clear timeline in place for reasonable adjustments, Dignity dismissed her within a year of her return.
In May, Ms JC was signed off work by her GP due to “an acute reaction to stress” stemming from a wage dispute and her treatment by the company. She recalled inconsistent pay, stating, “No one could explain why I wasn’t receiving my proper wage. One month, I was only paid £98.”
By October, Ms JC was presented with three options: return to a full-time funeral director role, transition to an administrative position with a salary of £15,925.35 on a four-week trial, or face dismissal. She rejected the administrative role, explaining that she “could not live on the reduced salary,” and was subsequently terminated later that month.
The Tribunal sided with Ms JC, with Employment Judge Nicol Hosie stating: “[Dignity] was fixated on requiring [Ms JC] to give an ‘end date,’ but that is equivalent to demanding she waive her right as a disabled person to reasonable adjustments. A reasonable employer would have allowed more time and given her a chance.”
Following the Tribunal’s conclusion, Ms JC was awarded £60,940.62 in compensation.
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.
