Tenner vs PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 23 June 2011 |
| Docket Number | 00134/10IT |
| Court | Industrial Tribunal (NI) |
| Respondent | PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REFS: 5877/09
134/10
CLAIMANT: Colin Tenner
RESPONDENT: PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Certificate of Correction
In this decision issued on 23 June 2011.
On Page 1 under appearances ‘PWC Legal Department’ should read ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers Legal LLP’.
Chairman:
Date: June 2011
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REFS: 5877/09
134/10
CLAIMANT: Colin Tenner
RESPONDENT: PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
DECISION
The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the claimant’s claims of direct discrimination, associative disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and victimisation be dismissed.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman: Mr D Buchanan
Members: Mr J Kinnear
Mr P McKenna
Appearances:
The claimant was represented by Mr D Stilitz, Queen’s Counsel, instructed by Fox Williams LLP, Solicitors.
The respondent was represented by Ms S McKie, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by PWC Legal Department.
|
1. |
(i) |
The claimant, Mr Colin Tenner, was formerly an equity partner with the respondent, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (‘PWC’), one of the leading national and international accountancy firms. His partnership with the firm was terminated on 27 February 2010. It is the events leading to that termination, and his alleged treatment by the firm, dating back to when he went off work because of work-related stress and depression on 10 September 2007, which give rise to the claims which he has made under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, as amended by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2004. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(ii) |
In brief, the claimant alleges:- |
(a) direct disability discrimination (relying on a hypothetical comparator);
(b) a failure to make reasonable adjustments;
(c) ‘associative’ discrimination on the basis of Coleman v Attridge Law, Case C-303/06 [2008] ICR 1128 (a decision of the European Court of Justice) and EBR Attridge Law LLP v Coleman (No 2) [2010] ICR 242. He claims that he was directly discriminated against and that there was a failure to make reasonable adjustments on the basis of his mother’s disability;
(d) victimisation, in that the respondent firm failed to award him performance pay for the financial year 2009 because he had instituted proceedings against it.
|
|
|
Generally, sections 6A and 6B of the 1995 Act (as inserted by Regulation 6 of the 2004 Amendment Regulations) prohibit discrimination and harassment, and impose duties to make reasonable adjustments, in relation to partners in firms.
We also record here that there is no claim of disability-related discrimination. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(iii) |
At a Case Management Discussion held on 19 November 2009 a Chairman of the Tribunals directed that a statement of the main factual and legal issues should be lodged with the Office of the Tribunals by 3 December 2009. This list of issues, which is extensive (albeit containing some overlap) is set out at Annex ‘A’ to this decision. At the start of the hearing, the respondent had conceded (on 31 March 2010) that the claimant had had a disability for the purposes of the 1995 Act from September 2007 onwards. This was diagnosed by his treating psychiatrist, Dr Miller, as severe depression, acute anxiety and chronic fatigue. On 10 March 2010 the respondent had conceded that the claimant’s mother, who had suffered a severe stroke, was also disabled for the purposes of the associative disability claim. The respondent also accepted that both the claimant and his mother continued to suffer from a disability until after the claimant was given notice of retirement. |
|
|
|
|
|
2. |
(i) |
In order to determine this matter, the tribunal heard evidence from the witnesses set out at sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii) below.
It was also referred to literally voluminous documentary evidence.
We take the opportunity to express our thanks to the respective counsel and solicitors for the thorough, meticulous and helpful way in which the proceedings were both presented and prepared for trial. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(ii) |
The claimant gave evidence, along with the following witnesses on his behalf:- |
Mr Brian Tenner (his brother);
Mr Sydney Reid (a close friend);
Mrs Lucia Tenner (his former wife); and
Dr Paul Miller (Consultant Psychiatrist)
|
|
(iii) |
The following witnesses gave evidence for the respondent:- |
Mr Paul Terrington, a partner in PWC based in Belfast. Mr Terrington is leader of the Advisory Line of Service in Northern Ireland and also leads the Northern Ireland consulting Practice (formerly Performance Improvement Consulting - ‘PIC’);
Mr Hugh Crossey (Managing Partner of PWC’s Northern Ireland Region);
Mr John Lowdon (Partner PWC Belfast);
Mr Jeff Thompson (Leader of the firm’s international consulting practice, but at the relevant time Leader of PWC’s consulting practice in the United Kingdom);
Ms Ann Cottis (Head of Partner Affairs PWC);
Ms Claire Bolton (a partner in PWC, and at the relevant time a member of its UK Supervisory Board); and
Dr John Sharkey (Consultant Psychiatrist)
|
|
(iv) |
We find the facts set out in the following paragraphs. |
|
|
|
|
|
3. |
(i) |
The claimant, Mr Tenner, is a chartered accountant by profession. He has worked for the respondent for over 20 years, having joined it on 14 September 1987. During that time he has worked in the USA, mainland Britain, and latterly – from around September 1996 – in Belfast. He has had a long and successful career with the firm, as is shown by the fact that on 1 July 2006, he was admitted as an equity partner. He was supported and encouraged in the partner admission process by Mr Hugh Crossey, although by the time of these proceedings the latter had largely come to be seen as a bête noir or villain of the piece by the claimant. Although relations between the claimant and the respondent and its senior partners now seem to be characterised by a degree of bitterness and ill-feeling, the respondent has never sought to cast doubt on the claimant’s abilities or the rightness of the decision to admit him as a partner. Prior to, and subsequent to, his admission as a partner, he was consistently graded as an outstanding performer. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
... |
To continue reading
Request your trial