Mr J
Pousson argued that BT failed to provide a stable place for blood
testing and injecting. And when tested himself at his desk, he
offended his colleagues. As a result he was reluctant to test
himself and suffered a hypoglycaemic attack in August 2001. This
caused him to fall and hit his head. He sustained a subdural
haemorrhage and never returned to work with BT.
The company knew about Mr Pousson's condition when it first
employed him as one of 150 workers in its Customer Service Team at
Dundas House, Middlesbrough. He worked five hour shifts and was
allowed a total of 15 minutes for unscheduled breaks, calculated in
seconds. So if he logged on for 17,100 seconds there would be 100%
adherence; but if he logged on for less than 90% of that time his
adherence was regarded as unacceptable.
BT's system automatically generated reports when thresholds were
triggered and, in Mr Pousson's case, triggered a poor performance
procedure. He received warnings on at least four occasions over a
two year period for absences from his desk and for days off
sick.
Mr Pousson was examined by Dr Almond of BT's Occupational Health
Service. Her report showed that Mr Pousson had a history of
difficulty in controlling his condition and in keeping his blood
sugar within a stable range.
Dr Almond had noted that diabetes sufferers can be more prone to
general viruses and infections and that these conditions can last
longer or be more debilitating than in somebody without diabetes.
She said that Mr Pousson's sickness absence would be likely to
exceed a healthy colleague's because of his disability – and told
BT that a reasonable adjustment under the Disability Discrimination
Act would be to consider: an allowance for Mr Pousson's sickness
absence; time off-line to test himself; access to food and drink at
his place of work; or a different shift pattern to assist him in
controlling his condition.
But BT ignored these recommendations, according to the
Tribunal.
The company had tried to argue that Mr Pousson's absences had
been unrelated to his diabetes; but the Tribunal found this
"utterly untenable," given that BT had in Dr Almond's report "the
clearest unequivocal medical advice" to the contrary.
The Tribunal said: "As soon as Dr Almond's report had been
issued someone with the necessary authority, competence and
understanding of disability should have taken over the management
of this situation and issued the necessary advice and guidance to
the line managers."
BT's appeal – on grounds that the Tribunal adjudicated on issues
not raised by Mr Pousson and that it made findings not supported by
the evidence or which were perverse – was dismissed last month.
Earlier this month, new Government
figures revealed that the number of people in the UK with diabetes
has broken through the two million barrier for the first
time.
Disclaimer: We hope you find OUT-LAW’s content useful. It’s prepared by the lawyers at Pinsent Masons. Please remember, though, that it’s intended as general information only. It’s not legal advice. If that’s what you’re seeking, please
contact us. See also: our
full disclaimer
