A HMRC worker has been ordered to fork out £20,00 in legal fees after claiming his anxiety and kidney problems prevented him from returning to the office after the pandemic.
A tribunal in Liverpool was told that employee Martin Bentley was “prepared to use whatever means he could” to avoid having to return to work in-person after lockdown restrictions were eased.
The HMRC employee stopped making phone calls following a health report in 2019 after claiming he could not “cope with telephony without it making him ill”.
Mr Bentley first began working from home when lockdown measures were introduced in March 2020 and refused to return when his employer requested.
Despite an Occupational Health report deeming him fit enough to come back to the office, Mr Bentley worked remotely until his retirement in 2024.
He proceeded to sue his employer for disability discrimination, however an employment tribunal ruled that there was “no medical reason” for him to work from home.
The Liverpool tribunal heard that Mr Bentley had struggled with anxiety, depression and kidney disease for more than 20 years.
A health report in 2021 concluded that his “personality and emotional response” was not well-suited for a role at the tax authority.
The HMRC employee stopped making phone calls following a health report in 2019
|
GETTY
Weeks later, the worker said that “the phones make me feel very stressed” during a stress management plan meeting.
Mr Bentley added that there was tension between employees who did and did not work using the phones.
The tribunal heard that after the tax worker claimed he was unable to use public transport, his employer offered to provide taxis between his home and the office.
However, he then said that travel to work was not an issue as he walked to the office previously.
LIVERPOOL NEWS – READ THE LATEST:
An employment judge ordered Mr Bentley to fork out £20,000 in legal fees (file photo)
|
GETTYAfter being put on a personal improvement plan after his line manager found issues with his work, Mr Bentley made a formal complaint and alleged he had been victimised.
He also claimed that his department did not offer him support when he was being “abused”.
Employment Judge Dawn Shotter said: “It is notable that [Mr Bentley] exaggerated his evidence including that given in relation to his health conditions.
“The Tribunal did not accept [Mr Bentley’s] uncorroborated evidence that there was a conspiracy between managers who were hiding the fact he had provided a statement despite not being told by him of its existence.
“He was provided with online one-to-one training which supported him, and congratulated when performance improved.
“[Mr Bentley] has acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably in either the bringing of the proceedings, or part of it, or the way that the proceedings, or part of it, have been conducted, and the claim had no reasonable prospect of success.”
A spokesman for HMRC said: “We are an office-based organisation, albeit one that offers flexible working arrangements for employees where appropriate.
“We acknowledge the court’s decision in this case.”
