MacBlair's 'credibility'.
*Too long for email*
P (paragraph).
P5 - “The Claimant made it clear that she would not be wearing a face covering citing
ideological and health grounds.”
“The Claimant did not notify her employer that she was suffering from a
disability or long term medical condition nor that she was unable to carry out normal day to day activities or that her injury was causing any material physical or mental
impairment. The Claimant only formally raised these issues when she was asked by the Company to wear a face covering or visor during her working hours whilst in the vicinity of customers.”
Manager: Andrew McCarron
The below email was sent by Andrew McCarron to Karol McGukan ‘Chief Operating Officer’ at MacBlair on 7 January 2020:
This was one of the few un-redactecd documents.
P8 - “This entailed monitoring and limiting the number of customers in the store, ensuring social distancing measures were adhered to, providing free face coverings and hand sanitiser to all customers entering the store.”
On return from furlough, I was told to do a different role. One that was significantly different to my contracted role.
Not a big lie but enough to make a tribunal consider why MacBlair felt the need to lie about it - In May or June 2020 I did not provide “free face coverings”:
“This applied to all colleagues working in customer facing roles or within the vicinity of customers within the store, especially in areas where social distancing would be most difficult.” - Keep this in mind.
P 10 - #Gary Ellis #Line Manager - “Ashleigh Morgan was asked by Gary Ellis, Branch Health & Safety Officer to speak to Andrew McCarron, Branch Manager and Line Manager to the Claimant” - Keep this in mind.
P 12 - “The Claimant also stated that she had been querying the efficiency of face coverings and had contacted the Health Authorities asking for scientific information in relation to this query but had received no response.”
“The Claimant asked Ashleigh Morgan to provide her with proof that face coverings would protect her.” - Keep this in mind.
P 13 - “The Claimant also made reference to the government's Covid-19 measures relating to the lockdown period and passed comment on their appropriateness. The Claimant then asserted that the face covering policy, referring to both the Government guidance and the Company directive as being detrimental to her human rights and freedom of choice.” - Keep this in mind.
My ‘disclosure’ or ‘Speak-Up’ report:
P 15 - “On 3 August 2020, the Second Named Respondent visited the Coleraine store.”
“He spoke with Andrew McCarron and it was agreed that the Company should continue to encourage the Claimant to wear a face covering.” - Keep this in mind.
“It was also mindful it would be difficult for a colleague to engage with a customer who was not wearing a face covering if they weren’t wearing one themselves. It was agreed that Andrew McCarron would meet with the Claimant before the end of the day to re-assess the situation.”
Steven Whyte sent this email on 31 July 2020:
P 16 - “An informal meeting took place later that day and the matter was discussed but not resolved. The Claimant was advised that she was being placed on authorised paid leave for one day, Tuesday 4 August 2020 during which it was hoped that she would be able to reconcile herself with the Company instruction in respect of face coverings. The decision to place her on paid leave was not punitive in any way and was the best course of action to allow space and time for reflection to see if the matter could be resolved.”
Notes from the “informal meeting” with Andrew McCarron:
I still wonder who that meeting would have been with.
P 18 - “The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the issues which she had raised regarding complying with the Company instruction that face coverings should be worn in shops and showrooms by colleagues when customers were present. In recognition of the Claimant’s declaration that she had been ‘freaked out’ by her colleagues wearing face coverings, masks were not worn by those in attendance and social distancing was well maintained within the meeting room.”
P 19 - “The Claimant agreed that she could see that however, stated that the guidance indicated that face coverings worn in retail premises were not compulsory and did not state that face coverings were to be worn by retail employees.”
P 20 - “The Claimant stated that she was not happy because the policy of the face covering had been forced upon her. She further stated that she was unhappy as the Government had taken her freedom of choice.
Company notes:
I recorded the meeting on 5 August 2020.
See earlier post:
P 24 - “After the meeting the Second Named Respondent and Ashleigh Morgan met with Andrew McCarron to advise that the Claimant would remain off work on paid leave and asked Andrew McCarron if he was aware of the brain injury to which the Claimant had referred. Andrew McCarron did confirm that he was aware that something had happened some time ago but did not have much information on it. - See above.
“During this conversation Andrew McCarron referred to the Claimant making posts on social media regarding the wearing of face masks, stating that although he hadn’t seen this himself, he was aware colleagues were talking about it. Andrew McCarron suggested that Gary Ellis may have more information.”
P 25 - “Ashleigh Morgan asked whether he could show her some of these posts
and he stated that he couldn’t as, due to the content of the posts, which he described as conspiracy stories, he had blocked her content from his Facebook newsfeed. Ashleigh Morgan asked Gary Ellis whether he had been aware of the symptoms that the Claimant was experiencing relating to a brain injury. Gary Ellis stated that he had been aware that the Claimant had been off for a short period around the time of an incident in 2018 but that he was not aware of any of the other issues that she had raised.”
I still wonder why Gary Ellis was never told to ‘unblock’ me.
As you can see, Gary Ellis made various accusations about me. Andrew McCarron did not tell Gary Ellis to provide proof of these accusations, neither did Steven Whyte, Ashleigh Morgan or MacBlair.
Gary Ellis did not provide any kind of testimony on behalf of the respondents.
I requested Gary Ellis’s appearance at the hearing, but that request was denied by President Kelly.
Gary Ellis, sent me the below:
P 28 - “The OH report, received 24 August 2020, provided some further information in relation to the Claimant’s concussion issues, noted that she had experienced stressors in work in relation to the requirement to wear a face covering and it was likely that “if there were other alternatives to wearing face masks that some arrangement can be reached”.
Remember Andrew McCarron appearing to not have much information on it?
The statement in the OH report was a suggestion, there was no consultation with me about it.
Remember that pesky “ideological” accusation?
I returned to work under the below instructions:
I was not allowed to leave the counter except under the above three conditions.
P 31 - “On 31 August 2020, the Claimant raised issues regarding wearing the visor and increased health difficulties. It was agreed that there was a temporary role which the Claimant could perform in the warehouse on stock count preparation (labelling / pre -counting etc) where she would not be required to wear a visor (due to space and not in close proximity to colleagues / customers - keep this in mind). The Claimant continued with these duties until 7 September 2020. The Claimant emailed Occupational Health on 4 September 2020 advising that after seeking further advice from the Equality Commission, she was following a recommendation to inform them of her inability to carry on trying to wear a visor.”
MacBlair are dishonest in their recording of events.
REMEMBER - *CE PERFORMED THIS ROLE UNTIL 6 SEPTEMBER*
I sent the below email at 07.53 on Friday 4 September to the OH doctor *note the word “still”:
The visor requirement remained until 4 September.
If, as claimed by MacBlair, a temporary role had already been agreed on 31 August, why did Andrew McCarron send this email at 13.38 on Friday 4 September asking Steven Whyte about my attendance at work on Sat 5 September?
Why would I seek information from the Equality Commission on the Thursday and, as advised by them, send an email to the OH Dr describing my inability to keep trying to wear a visor on 4 September if I was in another role and the requirement had been removed?
P 32 - “Following the completion of the stock count preparation work in the warehouse, Andrew McCarron spoke with the Claimant on Tuesday 8 September 2020 advising her that she should return to her amended counter duties and would no longer be required to wear a visor but did ask that she wear the ‘exempt’ badge which she had previously said (during the meeting on 5 August 2020) she would be prepared to wear.”
If I had finished these duties, on 6 September, why would Tuesday 8 September be an issue on Monday 7 September at 07.51?
“The Claimant appeared distressed and it was agreed that she could go home. The Claimant indicated via text message to Andrew McCarron that she would not be in work for the rest of week and would be in touch.”
I was sent home by Andrew McCarron because I was very distressed. Notice the difference in writing.
P 39 - “The Respondents absolutely refute the allegations of disability discrimination in its entirety. It is submitted that this claim is entirely without veracity or substance. The Claimant never formally informed the Respondents at any time during her employment, prior to the requirement to wear a face covering, that she was disabled or that she was suffering a long-term medical condition. Notwithstanding the Claimant’s claim to the Tribunal that she has been subject to unlawful disability discrimination, it is submitted that Claimant’s real objections to wearing a face covering were ideological rather than health related. The Claimant made clear her belief that Company’s policy regarding the wearing of face coverings in customer facing roles infringed her civil liberties. It is further submitted that the Claimant’s allegations of detrimental treatment by reason of ill health were misconceived.”
What do you think about MacBlair’s credibility?
What do you think about the dishonesty demonstrated above?
Is the tribunal right to conclude:
Let me know below.
NEXT: ANDREW MCCARRON