Posted: 09:37, 12 July 2022 | Updated: 10:19, July 12, 2022
An M&S worker successfully sued the company for sacking her when she fell ill after dealing with a shopper without a mask. Deborah Daisy was verbally abused by the “aggressive” man while working for the retail giant in November 2020, an employment tribunal heard. The hearing was told that this “traumatic” event affected her mental health and brought back incidents including an armed robbery and chasing a shoplifter out of a shop at a bus stop. Ms Daisy had received no training to deal with crime, the commission said, and fell ill for five months with anxiety and depression caused by fears about safety at work. The court heard that during this time, Ms Daisy complained about M&S’s “lack of action” regarding the incidents and that she still felt “vulnerable” when she waited. She was subsequently dismissed after M&S concluded that there were no adjustments that could be made to facilitate her return to work, so she brought a claim for unfair dismissal in an employment tribunal. Deborah Daisy successfully sued M&S for sacking her after being sick for five months after she was confronted by a shopper without a mask at the Teesside store where she worked (pictured above) Ms Daisy has now won her claim with the panel concluding that she should have been told the outcome of investigations into her personal security issues and the company had hidden behind the guise of GDPR restrictions. In addition, a judge was “surprised” by M&S’s failure to explore options that could resolve its problems, given it is a “well-resourced retailer”. “Loyal and hardworking” Ms Daisy joined the company in April 2015 and worked part-time as a customer assistant at the Teesside Park, Stockton-on-Tees branch. The hearing, held in Leeds, was told he left work due to “high levels” of stress and “severe” depression in January 2021 after confronting a shopper who refused to wear a mask. During a health meeting the following month, the panel heard that Mrs Daisy’s anxiety and depression were caused by the pandemic in general, but referred to this particular incident. Adjustments were discussed to facilitate her return. The court was told that two occupational health reports were made and she was deemed unfit for work, with an unlikely return in the foreseeable future. The panel heard: “Her history suggests she may be re-examining disturbing thoughts and feelings from the armed robbery or other incidents where she felt threatened. “This is likely to have an impact on why he currently does not feel safe at work despite strict Covid prevention measures. Ms Daisy said the confrontation with a shopper without a mask was “traumatic”. Pictured: shoppers wearing face masks. There is no indication that any of the figures confronted Mrs. Daisy “It is possible that the anxiety over Covid security will be exacerbated by some unresolved issues from the past and could include armed robbery and issues that have been addressed in the past.” The committee heard that inquiries were carried out by M&S into Ms Daisy’s concerns, however she was not informed of the outcome for “unclear” GDPR reasons. In April, Ms Daisy was notified that her continued absence could lead to her dismissal if she was unable to return to work, the court was told. Things had not improved over the following month, as the panel heard that thinking about work sent her stress “through the roof” and she felt “vulnerable”. The court was also told that at a meeting about her absence, Ms Daisy said she felt M&S had “failed to act and deal appropriately with abusive customers”. “Most of the fourth consultation took over [Mrs Daisy] complaining about the lack of action on incidents she had previously reported happening to her at the store and making her feel vulnerable… “It is clear from the content of the discussion in the fourth consultation that these are the issues [she] states she is being prevented from returning to work,’ the court heard. In June of that year he was fired, which he unsuccessfully appealed. Ms Daisy then took M&S to the employment tribunal, which found that she should have been told the outcome of the investigations and that M&S had only shared the information with her after she had been dismissed. Employment Judge Timothy Knowles concluded: “In my conclusion it was outside the zone of reasonable responses that an employer acting reasonably could have adopted to dismiss without sharing the findings about the issues she had raised in relation to her personal safety and deal with [Mrs Daisy] about how her fears for her personal safety can be addressed in the future…. “I am surprised that these matters were not investigated [her] given the fact that [Marks and Spencer Plc] is a well-resourced UK retailer and given that the plight of the stores and the abuse they suffer at work is widely known. Ms Daisy will receive compensation in due course, however this will be reduced by 25 per cent as the tribunal found that she was likely to have been dismissed in any event.
