An M&S employee who was fired after calling in ill after encountering a buyer without a mask filed a successful lawsuit against the corporation.
During her time working for the retail behemoth in November 2020, Deborah Daisy was subjected to verbal abuse from the “aggressive” guy, an employment tribunal heard.
According to testimony given at the hearing, this “traumatic” incident had an impact on the woman’s mental health and brought back memories of earlier incidents, including an armed robbery and her pursuing a shoplifter from the store to the bus stop.
The panel was informed that Mrs. Daisy had not received criminal justice training, and as a result, she missed five months of work due to anxiety and melancholy brought on by worries about workplace safety.
The tribunal heard that Mrs. Daisy complained about M&S’ “lack of action” regarding the incidents during this time and that she continued to feel “vulnerable” while shopping there.
She then filed a claim for unfair dismissal at an employment tribunal after M&S decided there couldn’t be any modifications made to make it easier for her to return to work.
The panel learned Mrs. Daisy’s anxiety and depression were brought on by the pandemic in general but specifically mentioned that incident during a meeting on ill health the following month.
They talked about changes to make it easier for her to return.
She was deemed unfit to work according to two occupational health reports, and the tribunal was informed that her return to work was unlikely in the near future.
The panel was told that she may be revisiting upsetting ideas and sentiments from the armed robbery or other instances where she felt threatened based on her history.
She probably doesn’t feel safe at work right now because of this, despite the strict Covid prevention measures in place.
“It is likely that some unresolved issues from the past, including the armed robbery and issues she alluded to in the past, are exacerbating the anxiety around Covid safety.”
The panel was informed that M&S looked into Mrs. Daisy’s complaints, but she was not informed of the outcome for “vague” GDPR reasons.
The tribunal was informed that in April, Mrs. Daisy received a warning that if she continued to miss work and became unable to do so, she risked losing her job.
By the following month, nothing had changed, according to the panel, which heard that her anxiety went through the roof when she thought about her job and that she felt “vulnerable in store.”
The tribunal was also informed that Mrs. Daisy expressed her opinion that M&S had not “acted and dealt with abusive customers correctly” in a meeting over her absence.
“Mrs Daisy complained about the lack of action about the incidences she had previously described as happening to her at the store and made her feel vulnerable for the most of the fourth appointment,” according to the report.
According to the tribunal, “it is evident from the content of the discussion during the fourth consultation that [she] is asserting that these are the concerns keeping her from returning to work.”
She was let go in June of that year after an unsuccessful appeal.
The employment tribunal decided that Mrs. Daisy should have been informed of the findings of the investigations and that M&S had only given her the information after she had been fired.
‘It was in my conclusion outside of the band of reasonable responses which might have been adopted by an employer acting reasonably to dismiss without sharing the findings about the issues she had raised in relation to her personal safety and engaging with [Mrs Daisy] about how her personal safety fears may be addressed in the future,’ employment judge Timothy Knowles wrote in his ruling.
Given that [Marks and Spencer Plc] is a well-resourced retailer in the UK and that the condition of shop workers and the abuse they endure at work is generally well known, I am surprised that such issues were not discussed with [her].
Mrs. Daisy will receive compensation in due course, but it will be 25% less than originally planned because the tribunal determined it was likely she would have been fired at some point.