Hot-Desking Policy Found To Be Disability Discrimination

In a recent employment case (Ms A Baker v House of Commons Commission: 2200145/2019), an Employment Tribunal has found that a House of Commons Commission Data Manager was treated unfavourably and discriminated against after asking colleagues not to use her desk that had been adapted to her health needs.

Ms A Baker v House of Commons Commission

Case background

Mrs Baker had worked for the House of Commons Commission since 1991. In 2005, she was diagnosed with a musculoskeletal condition and the Parliamentary Health and Wellbeing team recommended she use specialist equipment including an orthopaedic chair, specialist keyboard, mouse, and a reading/writing slope to help with her condition and to minimise any pain.

Mrs Baker claimed she was subject to disciplinary proceedings for asking colleagues not to use her workstation as a hot desk while she was off sick. However, a hot-desking policy existed at work as there were not enough desks to accommodate all employees.

In June 2018, Mrs Baker tripped in the street, fell, and injured her knee. As a result of this, Mrs Baker was signed off on sick leave until 20 August 2018. However, when she returned to the office she noticed all her equipment including her desk, chair, and workstation had been completely altered or moved. Mrs Baker claimed it was then difficult to readjust her equipment back to how it was previously.

When Mrs Baker raised the issue with her manager she was told that reserving her desk was not practicable and there were “fewer than 0.8 desks per person”. He said that she could request assistance to readjust her equipment and that it was not practicable to reserve her space for a whole month (the period in which she was on sick leave).

However, on 6 September 2018, an occupational health report recommended:

Later that month, Mrs Baker was on annual leave for one day to attend a medical appointment and left a ‘polite’ note on her desk reminding colleagues that it should not be used for hot-desking. However, when she returned she found that someone had adjusted her chair.

After Mrs Baker placed the note on her desk she was summoned to a disciplinary meeting for being “unreasonable”. The House of Commons Commission told the Tribunal that this disciplinary allegation was not pursued; although, the Tribunal found Mrs Baker had been distressed by it.

The Employment Tribunal’s decision

In a judgement published last month, the Employment Tribunal found that managers at the House of Commons Commission had failed to make a reasonable adjustment in preventing Mrs Baker’s desk from being used by others while she was not there.

The Tribunal ruled that while they appreciate keeping the desk reserved was not practical in the long term, it was reasonable in the short term, given Mrs Baker would have had to readjust her equipment every time it was altered.

The judgement also stated:

It was also accepted that Mrs Baker would have been put at a significant disadvantage by this practice in that her workspace has been adapted to her specialist needs. Employees altering her desk and equipment put Mrs Baker not only in discomfort but could expose her to risk of injury.

The Court also said Mrs Baker was victimised and discriminated against by the House of Commons Commission and that they failed to make reasonable adjustments for Mrs Baker under the Equality Act 2010.

Compensation will be decided at a remedy hearing in the near future.

Comment

Under the Equality Act 2010, an employer has an active duty to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled person where its policies, practices, or physical features of its premises, put a disabled employee at a significant disadvantage in comparison with a non-disabled person.

As an employer, it is vital to ensure your staff all have equal working opportunities in the workplace in order to avoid Employment Tribunal claims.