Search
Close this search box.

House of Commons employee with musculoskeletal condition wins disability discrimination claim after other staff used her hot desk

In the case of Ms A Baker v House of Commons Commission Alison Baker worked at the House of Commons from 1991. In 2005 she started to experience musculoskeletal symptoms and the Parliamentary Health and Wellbeing Service team recommended equipment for her to use at work. This equipment included an orthopaedic chair, specialist keyboard, mouse, number pad and reading/writing slope. Ms Baker’s orthopaedic chair was able to swivel, to reduce the need for her to twist her back or neck.

In the case of Ms A Baker v House of Commons Commission Alison Baker worked at the House of Commons from 1991. In 2005 she started to experience musculoskeletal symptoms and the Parliamentary Health and Wellbeing Service team recommended equipment for her to use at work. This equipment included an orthopaedic chair, specialist keyboard, mouse, number pad and reading/writing slope. Ms Baker’s orthopaedic chair was able to swivel, to reduce the need for her to twist her back or neck.

Due to overcrowding in the office, managers allowed other staff to use her workstation while she was away for short periods between June and September 2018. She would have to readjust the workspace and chair after each time it was used by someone else. When she left a ‘polite’ note asking staff not to sit there in her absence, bosses started disciplinary proceedings against her for what they saw as an ‘unreasonable’ request.

The tribunal ruled that while keeping the desk reserved was not reasonable in the long-term, it was reasonable in the short term “given that the Claimant would have had to readjust her equipment each time it was altered.”

Judge Brown said: ‘The House of Commons Commission had a practice of allowing hot desking on all desks. It accepted Ms Baker would have been put at a substantial disadvantage by this practice. Her workstation and equipment had been adapted for her needs, to prevent injury and discomfort.”

It said that the disciplinary action was a “heavy-handed and punitive response to the Claimant’s note”. A remedy hearing is set to take place at a later date.

Read more

Latest News

Read More

How HR can help protect businesses and employees against cyber threats

23 April 2024

Newsletter

Receive the latest HR news and strategic content

Please note, as per the GDPR Legislation, we need to ensure you are ‘Opted In’ to receive updates from ‘theHRDIRECTOR’. We will NEVER sell, rent, share or give away your data to third parties. We only use it to send information about our products and updates within the HR space To see our Privacy Policy – click here

Latest HR Jobs

University of NorthamptonSalary: £44,263 to £54,395 per annum This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court

HR Director – Interim – 9 month FTC – London – Hybrid – £100,000 – £120,000 A dynamic, global financial services business with offices based

University of Bristol – Human ResourcesSalary: £26,444 to £29,605 per annum This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal

Queen Mary University of London – Human ResourcesSalary: £31,421 to £38,165 per annum inclusive of London Allowance This provides summary information and comment on the

Read the latest digital issue of theHRDIRECTOR for FREE

Read the latest digital issue of theHRDIRECTOR for FREE