Ferry worker whose request to work on land were ignored wins almost £50,000 compensation

Ferry worker whose request to work on land were ignored wins almost £50,000 compensation The senior deck hand had repeatedly asked to be transferred to work on shore - Bookmark - CommentsGo to comments A senior boatswain at a ferry company has won almost £50,000 after bosses refused to let him work on land when he complained that working at sea aggravated his arthritis because of the vibrations on the ship. English Channel worker Sean Donnelly had been unable to work at sea as he was in 'a lot of pain physically' and the vibrations from the ship had made his osteoarthritis worse, a tribunal heard. The senior deck hand had repeatedly asked to be transferred to work on shore, but he was told that it was 'too difficult due to payroll and administration'. Mr Donnelly wanted to work for three more years until he retired but was left without pay and seeking benefits, despite making it clear he was fit to work ashore. At an employment tribunal held in Ashford, Kent, Mr Donnelly won his case of unfair dismissal and a failure to make reasonable adjustment, which is a type of disability discrimination. He has won £47,089. Mr Donnelly started working at DFDS in their Guernsey branch in October 2007, and he had become an Assistant Bosun. As the Assistant Bosun, he was in charge of loading the deck, mooring stations and anchoring operations. He worked two weeks on, two weeks off with a night and day shift pattern, and lived on board when at sea. In September 2022 he was diagnosed with osteoarthritis of the spine, and he notified the ferry company the next day. Mr Donnelly went on sick leave but rejoined the boat in January 2023, having passed the medical examination to be able to rejoin. He had a phased return, but after eight days, he had to leave because he was in too much pain. One of the Chief Officers told Matt Scott, the Crewing Manager: "As I say, he is obviously in a lot of pain physically and I have no doubt he is suffering mentally…I would suggest that at the moment [Mr Donnelly] is a long way off being capable of doing his job. "Perhaps with more time he may be able to return to work but that is a decision for someone better qualified than me." He said that Mr Donnelly was only planning to continue working for another three years until he retired but that he was keen to continue until this point. Mr Scott said that he would make enquiries into other roles Mr Donnelly could do and said there was a possibility of computer-based work in the shore-side role but that they had had a number of staff from ship go to operations and that everyone making that transition has to pass a screening program. In March 2023 Mr Donnelly discovered he had exhausted his sick pay, despite not being notified about this. He had not received notice of this and he raised a complaint about this. He said that getting treatment for his arthritis was 'financially crippling' and he had to rely on benefits. After speaking to a specialist, it was made clear to Mr Donnelly that he should enquire about jobs on land because the 'vibrations' on the ships were making his arthritis worse. He inquired, but he was told that it was 'too difficult' because it was the sister company DFDS A/S who dealt with employees on land. Mr Donnelly had a meeting with Lisa Abbott, Head of Marine HR, and told her that he was not hopeful he would be able to return to sea and so would be looking to be deployed to a job on shore if there was any availability. In October 2023, Mr Donnelly had received treatment through physiotherapy and injections to help his pain. He said that his condition meant that a number of adjustments could be taken to help him work on the ship such as an adjustment in his hours, having a support worker and not doing the forklifting duties. Mr Donnelly said that despite making himself available to work, he had been removed from the payroll and that he could be temporarily deployed to shore, but this had been denied twice. He was told that there were no available vacancies on shore because they had recently filled them with seasonal staff. Mr Donnelly lodged a formal grievance, but the ferry company said that his redeployment had not been denied because he had asked them to wait for further medical assessment. At an appeal hearing, Mr Donnelly said that he was told the move to onshore would have been 'too difficult due to payroll and administration'. The company said: "DFDS A/S and DFDS Guernsey are two separate businesses and a transfer of roles is not something they have control over." In March 2024, Mr Donnelly gave a list of reasonable adjustments and said that they could agree to these so he could work at sea, or he could be assigned to a position on land that didn't require heavy lifting. He said that if the company did not agree to any of these, then it would effectively be terminating his employment. The ferry company said that it was trying to get him back to sea but did not agree to his reasonable adjustments. Employment Judge Anna Corrigan said that they had unfairly constructively dismissed Mr Donnelly. She said: "The resignation letter is [Mr Donnelly's] email of 27 March 2024 read with the email of 8 April 2024. "We agree with [him] that he resigned in part because of [DFDS'] failure to make the reasonable adjustments. "We also consider that it was [DFDS'] failure to respond and/or ignoring his multiple requests to consider shore-side work." Judge Corrigan added: "[Mr Donnelly] resigned because of [DFDS'] ongoing failure to consider and facilitate redeployment shore-side and the failure to return him promptly to the payroll and to his role at sea once he had his ENG1. "We find the breach in respect of the latter was in not considering the OH report and recommended adjustments promptly or at all, leading to their response to the ENG1, and that was a last straw which added to the breach." Judge Corrigian said that some adjustments should have been made by DFDS to allow him to return to work. She said: "It was reasonable to expect [DFDS] to take steps from February 2023 to facilitate a temporary secondment or redeployment into the Operations Coordinator role on shore-side following the steer from the ship’s line management. "This would have involved supporting [Mr Donnelly] in passing the screening programme as soon as he was fit enough to work. "We do not accept that the two companies are so separate that [DFDS] had no influence over a transfer or redeployment." Join our commenting forum Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies Comments