Severing remote access for employees on long-term sick leave requires careful consideration due to potential legal implications.
- The Equality Act 2010 protects individuals from indirect discrimination, which can occur if a policy disadvantages a protected group.
- In the case Chawla v Hewlett Packard Ltd, Chawla’s email access was terminated, impacting his employment rights.
- The tribunal found Hewlett Packard had failed to make reasonable adjustments for Chawla’s circumstances.
- This case emphasizes the importance of maintaining communication and access to information for long-term sick employees.
Severing access to communication and information systems for employees on long-term sick leave can lead to significant legal challenges. The Equality Act 2010 highlights the risk of indirect discrimination, defined as applying a condition that disproportionately affects a protected group. Such was the concern in the case of Chawla v Hewlett Packard Ltd (2015).
Chawla, suffering from a stress-related illness, had his access to company email and intranet suspended shortly after he was transferred to Hewlett Packard, following its acquisition of Arcsight. This decision, made in line with company policy, was primarily aimed at reducing the potential for unauthorized access.
However, the restriction inadvertently led to Chawla missing critical updates concerning his employment, including his right to partake in Hewlett Packard’s share purchase plan, and it resulted in him being unable to exercise share options from Arcsight, which ultimately caused him to incur a tax liability. These oversights formed the basis of Chawla’s grievance against his employer.
The tribunal heard Chawla’s argument that Hewlett Packard’s policy should have been adjusted to accommodate his unique situation, ensuring he was fully informed despite being on long-term leave. It was determined that the restriction on email access failed to constitute reasonable adjustments, impacting Chawla’s terms and conditions of employment.
Moreover, it was concluded that the lack of timely information deprived Chawla of the opportunity to join Hewlett Packard’s share scheme alongside his colleagues, effectively disadvantaging him and breaching the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) as amended. The tribunal’s decision was upheld on appeal, underscoring the legal obligation to adapt policies for equitable treatment.
The Chawla case serves as a crucial reminder to employers to carefully weigh the implications of restricting communication for employees on long-term sick leave.
