States criticised for treatment of ill employee

Monday 22 May 2017

A watchdog appointed to monitor States’ decisions has criticised the States Employment Board (SEB), the Education Department and a local school, for the way they treated a long-serving employee who asked for early retirement on ill-health grounds.

The States Complaints Board (SCB) is now calling for the decision to reviewed, "..."...in order to remedy the fact that a loyal and respected employee, after years of unbroken service and having developed demonstrable ill-health, was treated so improperly and without thought to her welfare."

'Mrs X' had worked for Education for almost 25 years, and was about two years short of the normal retirement age - but due to her failing health, she contacted the head teacher to say she felt she had to retire. She said she didn’t want to quit, but was having breathing problems, high blood pressure, and that her failing eyesight and loss of dexterity could be putting students at risk. Mrs X told the board she felt the head teacher, “...made light of the situation," and seemed to see it as a resignation rather than an early retirement.

Under the process for early retirement on ill-health grounds, a employee has to be examined by a doctor appointed by the insurance company that advises the States. Mrs X was seen by 'Dr W' who concluded: “As Mrs X as yet has not had all the treatment options considered, and adjustments could allow her to remain at work, I would doubt that ill-health retirement would succeed at this time.”

Mrs X told the SCB that the consultation was brief and the doctor didn’t consider all the evidence. But the States Employment Board denied that and said it was Mrs X’s job to bring up those other facts at the time, and that she hadn't done so. SEB also criticised Mrs X for not going to see a specialist – as the process requires – to assess her health and to possibly suggest ways in which she could still continue her job.

In its conclusion, the Complaints Board says, “...the decision not to grant ill-health retirement to Mrs X… was appropriate given the information available at the time.”

But, it goes on to say, “...however, there has been a failing in the duty of care towards Mrs X. The head teacher and the Education HR team should have given her appropriate advice and ensured she was adequately informed of the various options available and the process to be followed… Ultimately, the Employer has a duty of care and a responsibility to support and guide the employee through the process, especially when they are not in rude health.”

The Board have asked for a retrospective review to be carried out "...in order to remedy the fact that a loyal and respected employee, after years of unbroken service and having developed demonstrable ill-health, was treated so improperly and without thought to her welfare."

The Complaints Board says within the next two months the SEB should reconsider the decision not to grant early ill-health retirement to Mrs X, and to make its decision public.