In Ms A Willis v National Westminster Bank plc Ms Willis began working for NatWest in September 2013. In December 2018 she was told she was being made redundant but successfully applied for a temporary secondment to a different team.
She was given the role Head of Operational Continuity in Resolution Centre of Excellence.
But in early August 2019, Ms Willis was diagnosed with colon cancer. In the following months, both her mother and brother were also diagnosed with cancer.
Just one month later, Ms Willis’ manager Mary Pragnell, called an HR representative to get advice to ‘replace’ the executive having found out about her treatment plan.
A transcript shown to the tribunal said she had a critical piece of work to deliver, and she wanted to ‘replace her’ because she felt she could not rely on her.
‘While she is travelling and thinks she is going to be completely functional until the end of the year, I still in my mind got to replace her because I just can’t rely on it. It’s too critical,’ she said.
Ms Pragnell admitted that Ms Willis is ‘really very valuable in her subject area’, and that while she did not want to ‘stress her out’, ‘purely selfishly really really I’ve just got a lot to deliver, and I need to deliver it.’
The tribunal found ‘it is apparent at this stage that Ms Pragnell [is] seeking authority to terminate [Ms Willis’] employment because she is likely to be absent from work for a period of time’.
On February 26 2020, Ms Willis underwent surgery for her cancer.
Two days later, she was told NatWest had agreed to a one-month extension to her secondment but that her last day would be April 4.
Employment Judge Frances Spencer said: ‘We do not accept that [Ms Willis] was dismissed for redundancy. At the time that she left the bank, she was employed to do work…
‘That work had not ceased or diminished. [It] was clear that they still had a requirement for someone in that role at [Ms Willis’] level.
‘We are satisfied that exceptions could be made when it suited the bank. We conclude that [NatWest] has not shown a potentially fair reason for dismissal.
‘However, if we are wrong in this conclusion and [Ms Willis] was dismissed for redundancy, then we find that decision to dismiss was unreasonable.
‘First, it was a decision which was tainted with discrimination.
‘Secondly, the [company] failed to discuss with [Ms Willis] various possibilities for regularising her role or extending her secondment and instead led her to believe that there would be an extension and that therefore there was no need for her to look for alternative roles.’
The Tribunal awarded Ms Willis nearly £90,000 for unfair dismissal.
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.
