Tonight:
4°c
Unwell gallery worker was moved to 'cold' Tate Modern
Paul Cheston, Courts Correspondent10 Aug 2009
A gallery employee with Crohn's disease broke down today as she described the impact on her health of a work transfer to Tate Modern, which she claims was too cold.
Elizabeth Andrews says that managers failed to take her disability into account when she was moved from Tate Britain after an alleged dispute with a colleague.
Ms Andrews, of Rochester, Kent, is seeking compensation from the board of trustees of the Tate Gallery, alleging the move had a detrimental effect on her health.
An employment tribunal hearing at Croydon was told that Ms Andrews began working as a gallery assistant in Pimlico in August 2003.
She was promoted to gallery super-visor in November 2004, working in the CCTV room, patrolling the gallery and being on call for emergencies.
During a meeting with her employer's occupational health doctor it was agreed to reduce her hours to four days a week from the beginning of 2007, to help her to manage her condition and to provide a special chair to alleviate back pain.
However, Ms Andrews was asked to move to Tate Modern after a colleague alleged that she had acted in a "rude and aggressive" manner towards her at an after-work party.
The colleague submitted a grievance and Ms Andrews described being requested at an internal meeting to make an apology, leaving her "humiliated".
She said: "I was desperately unhappy about the move and thought this might have a detrimental effect on my dis-ability, bearing in mind the reasonable adjustments that were in place at Tate Britain had not been put in place at Tate Modern.
"Nevertheless, I thought I would see how it worked, but I was very unhappy about the move.
"I moved to the Tate Modern on 1 November in 2007, and it became clear that it was not suitable.
It was a much bigger and colder building. The air conditioning from the CCTV room where I worked from time to time made my back condition worse. Covering gallery assistants' absences has further exacerbated my condition."
Ms Andrews said that she was "surprised" that an occupational health report had not been obtained before her move, but added that she suspected it would have recommended that she remained at Tate Britain on health grounds.
She was signed off sick in December 2007 and submitted a written grievance, stating the transfer had been "extremely detrimental in terms of working time, child-care arrangements and health".
She said: "I desperately wanted to return to Tate Britain as I was extremely unhappy at Tate Modern."
She added: "I felt I had been unfairly treated and it made my condition worse."
Ms Andrews says that her request to transfer back was rejected.
Then, after a meeting with her employer's human resources department, a fresh occupational health report in March last year confirmed that her bowels and back pain had become worse.
She said that, at a formal meeting in September last year, her grievance was upheld and it was acknowledged there had been "failings" in organising the move, that no occupational health assessment had been made prior to the transfer, and that her disability was not fully considered.
She claimed it was also acknowledged that the basis of the move had been taken without knowing all the facts about her relationship with the aggrieved colleague.
It was agreed that Ms Andrews would return to Tate Britain, which she did on 1 March.
The case continues.
Reader views (2)
Sooner or later "reasonable" has to come to an end.
How long before "reasonable" means moving someone to, oh perhaps someplace nice and tropical, just because it makes the employee feel less depressed or something?? If the checker at Tesoro is depressed by the weather, can Tesoro be made to relocate her to Hawaii??
How long before reasonable means accepting a lower quality of work, accepting disruption to the rest of the workforce, accepting a nasty or unpleasant attitude etc - all thing that would have someone else sacked? (already probably happened someplace)
- Trunk, US, 11/08/2009 00:46
Report abuse
Humiliated at having to apologise for having a "rude and aggressive" manner - yes, admitting you're in the wrong is always humiliating isn't it? The trick is not to put yourself into a position where you have to make any apologies in the first place. Looks a little like she carried on with that manner in demanding everything be done to suit her rather than the job she was there to do. Everything the article presents suggests "me, me, me!" in her case.
A word to the wise - the higher you get in the promotion stakes, the less choices you actually get in where you work.
Another point - I didn't see anything that demonstrated her worsening Crohn's Disease was attributable to her place of work. Sounds more to me that it can be put down to her getting into a tiz about not getting what she wanted and getting all worked up about it. That is something Crohn's IS known for.
- Rogan, Irving, 10/08/2009 21:35
Report abuse
