AA Guilty Of Disability Discrimination
Wednesday 27th July
AA FOUND GUILTY OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST DIABETIC GMB
MEMBER IT TRIED TO "PERFORMANCE MANAGE" OUT OF HIS PATROL
JOB
GMB member was not intimidated and his successful claim
shows that there is an alternative to being "performance managed"
out the door for the 450 AA staff across the country currently
facing this prospect
An Employment Tribunal, sitting in Exeter, has found that the AA
is guilty of discrimination against a disabled employee Paul Bailey
who AA tried to ""performance manage" out of his AA patrol job. The
Employment Tribunal unanimously held that Mr. Bailey had been
subjected by AA to direct disability discrimination, discrimination
arising from disability, harassment and a failure to make
reasonable adjustments because of his disability.
Earlier this month GMB, the union for staff in AA, said that up
to 450 AA workers across Britain have been targeted by AA managers
with "a take it or leave it" offer of £18,000 to leave their jobs
in five days of face being "performance managed" out the door. This
is a repeat of what happened in 2006 when over 3,000 were pushed
out the door by the private equity owners Permira and CVC. See
notes to editors below. GMB believe that the AA is seeking to get
rid of around 450 skilled patrol staff and replace some of them
with less skilled workers on lower pay and conditions. AA admitted
that they plan to performance manage 200 staff out the door.
Paul Bailey, a GMB member, was a top 100 patrol within the AA
and started working for the AA in 1998. He was diagnosed with type
1 diabetes in June 2009 following which he was advised to take a
more measured approach to his work. His performance subsequently
dropped, although he remained an average performer within the
company.
In the case of Mr. Bailey, in October 2010, the AA sent out a
training support patrol with Mr. Bailey for 2 weeks. The Tribunal
found that it had never happened before that an employee had been
accompanied by a training patrol for a period of 2 weeks and that
such accompaniment was generally for 1 day or, if there were
concerns about performance, 2 days. The Tribunal held that Mr.
Bailey was only being subjected to the assessment because his
performance had dropped because of his diabetes. Moreover, the
Tribunal held that Mr. Bailey's performance was not so bad as to
merit a performance review as his performance was average.
Moreover, neither Mr. Bailey nor the training support patrols were
told what to expect or what the purpose of the accompaniment was
meant to be. Mr. Bailey also received no feedback following the
accompaniment. Mr. Bailey found the accompaniment very stressful as
he believed the training support patrol was there to increase his
speed. He also found it difficult to take rest breaks while the
training support patrol was in the cab. Moreover, Mr. Bailey was
distressed when his line manager, Jason Morrison, called the
training support patrol and spoke with him about Mr. Bailey while
Mr. Bailey was present.
Further, in December 2010, Jason Morrison offered Mr. Bailey
three months' salary to leave saying that the alternative would be
to be placed on an improvement plan, which Mr. Bailey was told he
wouldn't pass. When Mr. Bailey refused to leave he was subjected to
a technical assessment for poor performers. The forms relating to
the technical assessment indicated that a person who did not do
well could be dismissed. Mr. Bailey attended the technical
assessment and was embarrassed to see that another person being
assessed was someone who was at the bottom of his team. Mr. Bailey
passed the technical assessment and acknowledged at the Tribunal
hearing that his performance had dropped so that he was no longer a
top 100 performer but insisted that he was not now a poor
performer. Rather, he stated that he was still an average performer
with over 1000 employees whose performance was beneath his own.
Mr. Morrison further told Mr. Bailey that there was another
patrol with type 1 diabetes and that therefore Mr. Bailey should
not have a problem, although Mr. Morrison later admitted that he
did not know who the other patrol was.
He also told Mr. Bailey that other patrols were paid the same
amount of money for doing twice as much work. Again Mr. Bailey
complained that there were hundreds of patrols who were not
disabled, who did a lot less work than him but who were not being
subjected to similar treatment.
Mr. Morrison also told Mr. Bailey that if he had an accident at
work, that Mr. Morrison could be liable for corporate manslaughter
and sent to jail.
Paul Grafton GMB Regional Officer who supported the claim on
behalf of Mr. Bailey said "The Employment Tribunal
unanimously held that Mr. Bailey had been subjected by AA to direct
disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability,
harassment and a failure to make reasonable adjustments because of
his disability.
The outcome for Mr. Bailey is clearly a huge step
forward to recognizing diabetes within the workplace and forcing
employers to act appropriately.
Mr. Bailey refused to bow to the intimidation and turned
to his union GMB who supported him when he filed his successful
claim. This should show other staff at AA that there is an
alternative to being "performance managed" out the door. Up to 450
AA staff across the country are currently facing this
prospect.
Sadly the AA continues to use huge financial resources
ifrom its private equity owned backers and intimidatory techniques
to push staff out the back door with a cheap financial offer
because they suffer a disability. AA has pushing
people out the door for years and it is happening now at AA
with the approval of the in-house staff association"'
Mr. Bailey, following receipt of the judgment, said ' I
feel a massive sense of relief as this whole process has had a
damaging effect on my health and my life. I always felt confident
of a positive result and would like to thank the GMB and their
excellent legal team for their unwavering support during
a very difficult time."
End
Contact: Paul Grafton 07714 239092 or Paul
Maloney 07801 343 838 or 0208 397 8881 or GMB Press Office 07921
289880 / 07974 251 823
Notes to Editors
Following the private equity takeover of AA GMB members
who were sacked AA disabled staff protested throughout 2006 and
2007 to say that AA profits were increased by sackings, prices
rises and reduction in service to customers, and that AA had been
asset stripped and burdened with debts as follows:-
- In September 2007 the private equity owners took £300 million
out of the AA having owned it for less than 3 years. The five top
people at owners CVC were paid £50 million each for a year's work.
City sources say the amount asset stripped was far higher.
- The AA has been left saddled with debts of £4.8 billion. Debt
is £400,000 per employee. Interest on this debt is £30,000 per year
per employee, more than double the pay of call centre staff.
- 3,400 of the 10,000 employees were in sacked between 2005/ 2007
and AA patrols were forced to work compulsory overtime.
- GMB was derecognized by AA HR professionals who were key to
setting up a staff association that assisted them in the greatest
act of corporate bullying ever seen in the UK.
- Disabled and sick staff was targeted for the sack in "one to
one" meetings. Each person was given the choice of either accepting
£18,000 to leave quietly without complaint or be "performance
managed" out the door with nothing. GMB has won employment tribunal
cases for unfair dismissals at AA during the restructuring.
- Wages for call centre staff in Newcastle upon Tyne, Manchester,
Birmingham and Cardiff were cut and staff are subjected to total
surveillance.
- Prices for many customers were also raised.
- AA fell from first to third for response times to customers
after the takeover by private equity. Night patrols were withdrawn
after seventy years.
- In October 2007 it was reported that an AA member stranded in
the Yorkshire Dales for 10 hours had to be rescued by his wife
travelling from Southampton before the AA could get to him. The AA
has written to him to say "It is as a direct result of your
experience that we are fully engaged in the process of changing our
(award winning) working methods to address our failings."
- In October 2007 GMB wrote to Department of Transport
complaining the AA is breaking the law failing to comply with the
tachographs and drivers hour's regulations for its VRS recovery
vehicles.