In a recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision Croft Vets Ltd & Others v. Butcher, the EAT confirmed that it was not outside the scope of the duty to make reasonable adjustments to require an
In a recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision Croft Vets Ltd & Others v. Butcher, the EAT confirmed that it was not outside the scope of the duty to make reasonable adjustments to require an employer to fund the private medical treatment of a disabled employee who was signed off work with work related stress.
Mrs Butcher suffered from work related stress as a result of additional responsibilities placed on her due to business expansion and personal circumstances. A clinical psychiatrist to whom Croft Vets Ltd had referred Mrs Butcher, recommended that consideration be given to funding six psychiatric sessions at a cost not exceeding £750. When Croft Vets Ltd did not act on the recommendations made by the clinical psychiatrist, Mrs Butcher resigned and claimed constructive unfair dismissal and a failure to make reasonable adjustments.
The Employment Tribunal found in her favour and Croft Vets Ltd appealed. The EAT determined that the Employment Tribunal correctly found that Croft Vets Ltd had not made reasonable adjustments by failing to pay for Mrs Butcher to have private psychiatric services and counselling.
Does this mean that an employer will now be required to pay for a disabled employee's private medical treatment in general? No, says the EAT. The issue was not the payment of private medical treatment, but, rather, payment for a specific form of support to enable Mrs Butcher to return to work and cope with the difficulties she had been experiencing at work. It does not appear that the issue of whether such treatment was freely available on the NHS within an appropriate time frame was properly explored and this may have an impact on future decisions. It is also worth noting that the treatment costs involved in this matter were not substantial. Whilst the EAT did not comment on this issue, it is possible that a different decision would be reached in circumstances where the private medical treatment in question runs to many thousands of pounds.
Mrs Butcher suffered from work related stress as a result of additional responsibilities placed on her due to business expansion and personal circumstances. A clinical psychiatrist to whom Croft Vets Ltd had referred Mrs Butcher, recommended that consideration be given to funding six psychiatric sessions at a cost not exceeding £750. When Croft Vets Ltd did not act on the recommendations made by the clinical psychiatrist, Mrs Butcher resigned and claimed constructive unfair dismissal and a failure to make reasonable adjustments.
The Employment Tribunal found in her favour and Croft Vets Ltd appealed. The EAT determined that the Employment Tribunal correctly found that Croft Vets Ltd had not made reasonable adjustments by failing to pay for Mrs Butcher to have private psychiatric services and counselling.
Does this mean that an employer will now be required to pay for a disabled employee's private medical treatment in general? No, says the EAT. The issue was not the payment of private medical treatment, but, rather, payment for a specific form of support to enable Mrs Butcher to return to work and cope with the difficulties she had been experiencing at work. It does not appear that the issue of whether such treatment was freely available on the NHS within an appropriate time frame was properly explored and this may have an impact on future decisions. It is also worth noting that the treatment costs involved in this matter were not substantial. Whilst the EAT did not comment on this issue, it is possible that a different decision would be reached in circumstances where the private medical treatment in question runs to many thousands of pounds.