Exclusion from Workplace Group Chats Deemed Discriminatory, Says Judge

A judge has ruled that excluding colleagues from WhatsApp group chats can be considered a form of discrimination. Employment Judge Sarah George, presiding over a tribunal, stated that leaving employees out of messages sent to their coworkers could be viewed as an "unfavourable act."

 

This decision follows a case in which a plumber, Mark Brosnan, was awarded more than £130,000 in compensation for being excluded from an online staff group while he was off work due to a back injury. Brosnan claimed that he had been left out of the chat, which was created to "communicate important safety information," while he was employed by Coalo, a company owned by Hounslow council in west London.

 

The tribunal heard that Brosnan, who had been with the company since September 2016, began experiencing a lower back injury in June 2019. In February 2020, he had to take 15 days off work and attended a "formal absence meeting" where he underwent an occupational health assessment. It was estimated that he could return to work in two to three weeks. However, Brosnan stated that he felt "extremely depressed" when the recommendations made to facilitate his return were disregarded.

 

In April of the following year, he sustained another lower back injury, which he attributed to the "failure to implement" the initial occupational health recommendations and performing tasks he "had not been trained for." During a grievance meeting in August 2021, Brosnan was informed that he had been "excluded from a WhatsApp group because of sickness absence." Judge Sarah George noted that this chat had been established to convey important information, including matters related to health and safety. A manager had reportedly told Brosnan that he was not added to the group because he was absent.

 

Subsequently, Mr. Brosnan decided to resign in December 2021, as he had received no communication from his superiors regarding his grievance. He was also denied full sick pay when his absence should have been classified as an "industrial injury."

 

Judge George emphasized that some employers might refrain from contacting sick staff to avoid exacerbating their health conditions or burdening them with work-related matters during their recovery. However, she noted that this cannot be assumed, and Coalo had not presented any evidence to support this claim.

 

Ultimately, Mr. Brosnan's claims for disability discrimination, victimization, and unfair dismissal were upheld, resulting in a total compensation award of £134,411.

 

PM Law 

Sheffield Solicitors