A House of Commons manager has been awarded compensation after colleagues sat in her special chair and bosses tried to discipline her for asking them not to.
Alison Baker had a modified workstation provided for her which included a special orthopaedic chair to help her manage neck and back problems.
However, while she was off sick for several weeks, managers facing what they claimed was an overcrowded office had encouraged “hot desking”, allowing other staff members to sit at Ms Baker’s desk.
When Ms Baker returned to the office, she told an employment tribunal, her workstation had been “drastically altered or moved”.
The tribunal heard that Ms Baker took this as a “personal threat” and a “complete violation of her identity”.
And when the Palace of Westminster Collections Manager left a “polite” note asking staff not to sit there in her absence, bosses started disciplinary proceedings against her for what they saw as an “unreasonable” request.
Ms Baker, who is responsible for “arranging the care of the ‘architectural fabric and decorative arts’ in the Palace of Westminster”, joined the House of Commons Commission in 1991.
‘Dedicated workstation’
In 2005, she began experiencing musculoskeletal symptoms and specialist equipment, including an orthopaedic swivel chair, was recommended to reduce the need for her to twist her neck or back.
It was in June 2018 that she fell in the street and damaged her knee, leaving her signed off work for over a month. Upon her return in August of that year, she found that her desk had been appropriated in her absence.
Noting the changes to her workstation set up, she emailed bosses and was told: “The desk you sit at will have been used by people hot-desking.”
Ms Baker told the tribunal she found it difficult to adjust her equipment to again make them suitable for her needs.
But her line manager, Donald Grant, told the tribunal that office space was “at a premium” at the time, and that there were “fewer than 0.8 desks per person”.
‘Polite notice’
In September of that year, the tribunal heard, an occupational health report recommended Ms Baker's desk not be used as a “hot desk” because she “needs to have her own dedicated workstation”.
Ms Baker also placed a “polite notice” on her desk asking for it not to be used when she was away.
That same month, after spending a day away from the office for a medical appointment, she returned to find her orthopaedic chair had been altered again.
Later in September, Ms Baker was invited to a disciplinary hearing which included the allegation she had “unreasonably” placed a note on her desk to warn colleagues against using it as a hot desk.
The allegation was later removed in a revised invitation, the tribunal was told.
Ms Baker again went on sick leave in October, citing workplace stress, and brought her tribunal claims in January 2019.
Employment Judge Jillian Brown ruled that Ms Baker had been treated unfavourably after bosses took disciplinary action against her for leaving the note asking colleagues not to use her desk.
‘Unfavourable treatment’
Judge Brown said: “The House of Commons Commission had a practice of allowing hot-desking on all desks.
“It accepted Ms Baker would have been put at a substantial disadvantage by this practice.
“Her workstation and equipment had been adapted for her needs, to prevent injury and discomfort.
“After returning to work after a one-day absence, Ms Baker returned to find someone had altered her workplace-adjusted chair despite her polite notice asking colleagues not to use her desk.
“Ms Baker's polite note... was clearly something arising in consequence of her disability.
“The tribunal concluded that Mr Grant initiating disciplinary action against her for leaving the note was unfavourable treatment.”
Ms Baker’s claims of failure to make reasonable adjustments also succeeded – with the tribunal ruling it was “reasonable” for Ms Baker to expect her desk to remain free during an absence of just one day.
Other claims of sex and disability discrimination, victimisation and disability discrimination were dismissed.
A further hearing to decide upon compensation will be held in due course.
