NatWest Group unfairly dismissed and discriminated against an employee by changing her reporting line, denying her a performance review, and dissuading her from applying for other jobs after she disclosed her bowel cancer diagnosis.
In a judgment handed down by the London Central Employment Tribunal this week, employment judge Spencer said Adeline Willis’ dismissal from the banking group in 2020, while she was recovering from surgery, had been “tainted with discrimination”.
The claimant, who lodged the claim against NatWest Group subsidary Royal Bank of Scotland, is now seeking compensation in excess of £2m.
Willis, a senior risk and compliance professional, had worked at NatWest Group since 2013 and was most recently on secondment as head of operational continuity in resolution, after her previous role within the organisation had been made redundant.
She was given the role under secondment as the job was based in Edinburgh, while Willis was based in London. She was under the impression that her line manager was attempting to get approval to relocate the role to London on a permanent basis – however, it later emerged that her manager had not sought this approval.
Willis was diagnosed with bowel cancer in August 2019. She informed her manager, Ms Pragnell, that she did not require any significant amount of time off and would work from home on days she needed hospital scans and treatment.
In September, Pragnell told Willis that she wanted her to report to a new line manager, Ms Lambourne, who she said would have more time to support her during her treatment. The tribunal considered changing her line manager at this stage to be unfavourable treatment.
Shortly after this, Willis became aware that she would need daily chemotherapy and radiotherapy, followed by an operation that would take place in early 2020. Pragnell and her line manager, Ms Williams, spoke to HR about this. Transcripts produced at the tribunal appeared to show that they sought advice about terminating the secondment early and replace her with somebody else as her work was “too critical”. Williams added that “at the end of the secondment there is no role for her”.
At this stage, the claimant believed that she was working on secondment while Pragnell sought to make the role permanent. No action had been taken to terminate her secondment.
The team had weekly meetings on Mondays, which Willis attended by dialling in from home. On her first Monday back in the office, she attended the meeting but was told by Pragnell in front of others that she was not needed. Willis felt humiliated. The bank told the tribunal that this had been intended as a supportive measure designed to reduce Willis’ workload, but the tribunal did not accept this and felt it was unfavourable treatment.
Disability discrimination
Indirect disability discrimination: lessons from Follows v Nationwide
In November 2019, Pragnell told the claimant that she wanted to extend her secondment to allow her time to recover from surgery and that she would explore this with HR.
Willis was aware that the extension was not guaranteed, but Pragnell encouraged her to believe that there was a good chance of an extension. Pragnell had not discussed her options if the secondment was not extended.
The tribunal heard that Pragnell did not ever seek to make the role permanent because she did not require the role in London or at Willis’ salary. Pragnell accepted at the hearing that she had never asked Willis about her views on applying for the permanent position, or whether she would be prepared to accept a role in Edinburgh on a lower salary.
In December, Willis was told she would not be given a year end performance review because she had better things to concentrate on. The organisation argued that this had been intended as a supportive measure. The tribunal ruled this had been unfavourable treatment.
Shortly before her surgery in February 2020, Willis requested an extension to her secondment as a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act. Pragnell told her that she should not be looking for other roles, that it was “ridiculous”, and she would talk to HR and request an extension.
An email trail provided to the tribunal led it to conclude that Williams and Pragnell sought an extension on compassionate grounds only, and that they did not wish, or make a business case for, the claimant to return to the role at the end of her treatment.
The judgment says: “It is notable that neither Ms Pragnell nor Ms Williams made it clear to HR that the role and the work was still there… Ms Morgan of HR recommends a six-month extension to enable her to have her operation and recover on the bank’s healthcare but that ‘the risk of course is that the operation itself is successful and she doesn’t need any follow-up treatment, or the follow-up treatment can be done on the NHS’. In other words, there was a risk that the claimant would be able to return to work.
“In the end Ms Highway, HR director, reluctantly authorised a one-month extension ‘purely out of concern for wellbeing for the individual given the way it appears it has been managed’. She was evidentially angry that it appeared that expectations had been set with the claimant that there would be an extension.”
Willis was told she would not be given a salary increase, while other members of her team did, which the tribunal said had been unfavourable treatment.
This has been a harrowing experience for my client who did not deserve the appalling treatment that she endured at the hands of one of this country’s largest and best resourced employers” – Will Clayton, Constantine Law
She was told on 28 February 2020 that a one-month extension to her secondment had been agreed and and her employment would terminate on 4 April 2020. She received an enhanced redundancy payment.
Willis spent much of her sick leave looking and applying for alternative roles at the company, some of which she told she was not qualified for.
After she left, in late April 2020, managers applied for approval for the replacement to the Willis’ role. The new employee was based in Edinburgh on a lower salary.
In summing up the case, the tribunal found that Willis was treated unfavourably “because of something arising from disability”. The judge found the reason for the decision not to make a case to keep Willis permanently was because of her absences related to cancer.
The tribunal has encouraged NatWest Group and Willis to settle the case to avoid the need for a remedy hearing in April.
Will Clayton, employment partner at Constantine Law, which represented Willis, said: “This has been a harrowing experience for my client who did not deserve the appalling treatment that she endured at the hands of one of this country’s largest and best resourced employers. The next step is to ensure that Ms Willis is fully compensated for her losses and the discrimination that she has suffered.
“Although I hoped, for Ms Willis’s sake, that we would settle this case before the full hearing, that wasn’t to be. Instead, we had to fight every inch of the way. Now that we have this judgment in which the tribunal clearly saw through the bank’s hollow defence, it makes all the hard work worthwhile.”
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
A NatWest Group spokesperson said:“We recognise the extremely difficult personal circumstances in this case. The bank is currently reviewing the judgment and considering its position further.”
HR opportunities in banking and finance on Personnel Today
Browse more HR opportunities in Accountancy, Banking, Finance and Insurance
