Search for
Search for
Search forPolice dyslexia tribunal settled after cops told they would lose
Wednesday, September 10, 2008, 07:00
The chairman of the hearing – in which 21-year-old Martin Whitehouse claimed the constabulary did not take his disability into account when processing his application to become a constable – stepped in to advise a settlement.
He gave strong indications that the police would lose the case if they pursued it. The guidance was heeded and a confidential agreement was reached which brought the legal proceedings to a close.
After the hearing, Mr Martin’s solicitor, John Mackenzie, a trustee of the British Dyslexia Association, said the case had major implications for employers all over Britain.
He cited figures which conclude 10 per cent of the population is dyslexic, and said: “These sorts of problems arise with employers in every field all over the country. They don’t realise what a minefield the Disability Discrimination Act can be. But it’s pretty simple, as long as they are properly trained and organised. Every organisation should have a copy of the British Dyslexia Association’s code of conduct, which sets it all out.”
Both parties in the case were urged to discuss whether they could settle the case yesterday morning, when it emerged that police recruitment managers did not follow Home Office guidelines when processing the application.
The tribunal also heard that Mr Whitehouse, who lives and works in Plymouth, had asked for special equipment to which he was entitled, because employers are obliged to make “reasonable adjustments” to make his job easier in light of his dyslexia. But, after an external assessment identified what aids would assist him, senior staff took no significant action to obtain it for three months.
The revelations prompted John Hollow, chairman of the tribunal bench sitting in Exeter, to advise both parties to adjourn to discuss a settlement.
He demanded an explanation for the delay in obtaining the specialist equipment, which included a more in-depth spell checker and headphones which exclude background noise.
The police solicitor, Caroline Denley, admitted the priority had “fallen to the bottom of the pile”, but said changes could not be made swiftly because the technology was not compatible with force systems.
But Mr Hollow replied: “We can accept that the process may take some time, but you did not start that process for three months. Does that amount to a failure to make reasonable adjustments?”
Mr Hollow said he and his colleagues were also having “difficulties” with the matter of the job application form.
The tribunal heard that recruitment manager Christopher Miller personally marked the form, but only looked at the relevant competence sections.
He did not examine the first page, on which the claimant had written that he was “disabled”, although he had not specified his condition.
According to Home Office guidelines, Mr Miller should have contacted the applicant to ascertain the nature of his disability, and in the case of dyslexia, checked whether any adjustments could be made to the process.
Mr Miller told the hearing that he believed such adjustments were built into the process, because each applicant could take as long as they wanted over the form, and could use a spell checker.
When Mr Martin phoned to query his failed application, and reported the nature of his disability, Mr Miller had the paper checked by a colleague. But he did not mention that Mr Martin was dyslexic, and he again failed the test on spelling alone.
Mr Hollow told the hearing: “As soon as he [Mr Miller] saw the form saying he [Mr Martin] was disabled, someone should have contacted him to see what adjustments could have been made at that stage.”
Both parties agreed to adjourn and settled the case, with a confidentiality condition which means that the nature of the agreement cannot be disclosed.
Trevor Dicks, employee relations manager with Devon and Cornwall Police, said he was pleased the matter had reached a conclusion and hoped both parties can now “move forward”.
Personal Injury Specialists. No Win No Fee, As Seen On TV.
Pet Insurance- 5% Online Discount
UK Pet Insurance. Buy instantly online. From just £4.85 per month.
Earn money free online. Work from home and earn money today.
Will Plymouth's economy pick up in 2009?
Comment on this story