Reproduced below (with permission) is an email from Emily, who DPAC have been supporting in seeking redress for her complaint about her treatment as an employee.
You can read the previous communications in this series here (most recent first)
Response from the British Council regarding the treatment of a disabled employee (May 2020)
Our response to British Council over their treatment of a disabled employee (March 2020)
Right of Reply for British Council to our letter to them (February 2020)
Questions to British Council over their treatment of a disabled employee (February 2020)
We will, as previously, afford British Council a right of reply by publishing their response as before.
Dear Claire,
Thank you for your reply to DPAC’s requests and the letter of apology.
DPAC request: The British Council formally apologise to Emily for what happened to her and her partner and for the stress so caused. Not an expression of regret but a simple written apology direct to her (as was recommended by the grievance investigation report in February 2018)
I appreciate the acknowledgement that global “standards of support, communication and adjustments” were not met but the apology is diminished by the time it’s taken, the effort put in, and the obstruction faced along the way. And I am of course disheartened that DPAC’s straightforward requests for information and dialogue, as a reasonable way of resolution, have not been met.
The letter says “It is disappointing that having recognised where we could have made improvements, we were not able to resolve these together, as this was our mutual goal”. It is extremely disappointing as there have been many opportunities to resolve these issues but the British Council chose to ignore our concerns about bullying and discrimination, and the recommendations from my grievance and occupational health, and to end my (and my partner’s) employment instead.
It says “I am sincerely sorry that you feel our actions have contributed to your feelings of distress”. It is not about my feelings about the actions taken because the actions and their impact speak for themselves. They haven’t contributed to my distress; they are the distress – compounded by every effort, and the time and money spent by the British Council, to shut us out.
I’m certain the attitudes, behaviour and processes we have had to contend with would be distressing for most people, but made worse because 1.) we were asking for help with bullying and discrimination and faced much more as a result, 2.) we are encouraged to raise concerns and we did so according to British Council policy but none of the policy was there for our benefit, and 3.) the whole purpose of reasonable adjustments is to reduce or remove the effect of a disability, not exacerbate it. The British Council knew explicitly (from the information they requested from me, my doctors and occupational health the impact these actions – and prolonged lack of action – would have, were having (and are still having), on my physical and mental health. Mostly, I needed to avoid unnecessary stress, which is a trigger for Meniere’s, a risk for the aneurysm, and not great for anyone’s wellbeing at work. This had been communicated since being particularly ill in 2015 and I desperately wanted to avoid a rerun of that.
I had no problems at work until I had to ask for support. It was not a decision I took lightly and it was supposed to be a positive step for my health and work. I lost both. My grievance report states: “It is worth noting that at no time has there been any question relating to Emily’s work performance, or the quality of her teaching.” It would be easier to understand the actions taken by the British Council if there had been.
DPAC request: Emily sees the policy instructions and advice that is issued by the British Council learning from her case.
I have been told via email on a few occasions that our experience is a learning point for the British Council, and once, via Twitter, that the issues are “serious”. But I am sacked and told to move on. In response to the above request, you say no formal written policy instructions and advice have been issued. You explain that this is because it is not a policy issue but a problem with application of policy.
This is the same point I have been trying to make for the last five years. I was pleased and proud to be working for the British Council (after having been involved with Erasmus, Comenius, and the British Council English Teaching Graduate Scheme) because of its policies and values. I felt reassured by the comprehensive equality policy and guidance in place to support managers and staff when I was repatriated for hospital treatment by the British Council. It is why I thought it would be straightforward, or at least possible to put policy in to practice so I could get on with my career and life, as before.
At no point since raising concerns about failure to follow policy, have we been able to hold the British Council to its word or values – and that is the problem.
It took two years to get some simple adjustments to my timetable in the first place. I moved jobs as a result of this and contract changes requiring teachers to work more hours for the same pay. Unfortunately, in the new teaching centre they weren’t just reluctant to make reasonable adjustments but resistant. They also didn’t process new starters’ criminal record checks until after we started working. Both issues were impacting our ability to do our jobs and should have been done in advance, according to clear procedure and an email from UK HR staff, who confirmed “individuals cannot start employment until DBS checks have been completed in all instances”. But instead of acknowledging this and adhering to policy at any point, I was made to go through:
- meeting after meeting where simple reasonable adjustments (that had been recommended by doctors and agreed in another teaching centre) were questioned, delayed, refused;
- repeated instances of bullying and harassment (documented and evidenced throughout)
- raising concerns informally with senior management who did nothing
- an unusual and protracted grievance process and formal ‘raising concerns’ investigation, in which we were told to rewrite our grievances, had no face-to-face meetings, and weren’t allowed to see or discuss the results;
- a lengthy but impossible appeal due to not being allowed to see the original outcome;
- two occupational health assessments (only after my grievance had been made, and after I had been through a lengthy reasonable adjustment process);
- the termination of my partner’s employment when he travelled with me to see doctors on occupational health advice;
- being told that I can’t join PCS or the local staff association;
- a Data Subject Access Request (DSAR) to obtain my own grievance report, which turned out to be entirely favourable. It also returned dozens of emails between senior managers about me revealing the extent of the discrimination, which have never been acknowledged;
- an extended period of sick leave waiting for the recommendations from my grievance and occupational health assessments to be made (not knowing from one month to the next if I was getting paid or if I could return to work because my emails and sick notes went unanswered);
- attempted early conciliation by Acas, with which managers wouldn’t engage;
- a tribunal claim which was delayed and defended by the British Council on the grounds that the Equality Act 2010 doesn’t apply to their employees working overseas despite it being incorporated in to global policy;
- attempted mediation, which I was offered by letter but then told would not be suitable/possible;
- the cancelling of our medical insurance whilst I was still employed and overseas;
- and the eventual termination of my own employment without the occupational health or grievance recommendations being made – and without warning, the right to appeal, or my contractual notice pay (which I still don’t have)
Despite months of emails and meetings trying to get resolution to our grievances and my adjustments, the termination letter claimed that it was my choice not to return to work. Furthermore, I was given three months’ notice without pay which, contrary to the claim that it was to help with my planning, meant I had to push and wait for another five months for my pension, holiday pay, and for flights and shipping and paperwork to be arranged so we could return to the UK. During this time, there was no sense of urgency from the British Council and barely any communication. I had no work, income, access to healthcare or other support networks, in a foreign country.
Since then (for the last year and a half), there has been drawn out correspondence from me, my MP and DPAC asking for clarity on policy and decision making, which has not been forthcoming. (We have also had to go through an unnecessarily complicated and expensive process to get our Moroccan police checks and my IELTS certification that we needed for work and had asked for in Morocco). Emails were often overlooked, correspondence was ended with my MP and now, four months after DPAC first wrote to you, their requests have also been denied.
Most of these obstacles are in addition to the specific instances of bullying and discrimination raised in our grievances, so you can see it is not just about the “challenges faced in obtaining the right level of support to secure reasonable adjustments” (twice), and hopefully understand why it doesn’t feel at all like there were any attempts “to resolve these together”.
Request: Emily is given the opportunity to meet with your Internal Disability Working Group and your External Disability Advisory Group for them to hear from her first-hand what she experienced prior to, throughout, and following the grievance process, and what she thinks needs to change
In response to DPAC’s other request, we are told that it wouldn’t be appropriate to meet with the Internal Disability Working Group or the External Disability Advisory Group but have asked me to share “specific learnings or recommendations” to “support improvements where possible and necessary”.
The main problem, as outlined above, is having to ask for equality and inclusion in the first place. It’s not our fault or responsibility to resolve, especially when there are clear policies and resources in place. Neither is it our job to try to change attitudes when senior managers think asking for policy to be applied is an abuse of disability and an attack on their rights (this was actually written in an email): Or that disability is a tick box exercise for application forms or a performance for EDI week and not about real people that you’re working with: Or that it’s OK to repeatedly question a person’s diagnosis/needs/ability to do their job: Or use their position to threaten someone’s employment status making it perpetually insecure, etc.
Furthermore, when forced to challenge this behaviour, attitudes are entrenched, more barriers go up and we are excluded from the conversations we initiated and eventually the workplace. Finally, we are refused explanation and even blamed for making things difficult, for wasting management time, for losing our own jobs – when the reverse is true. There is not much more disempowering and disabling. The opposite of equality and inclusion. Nothing About Us Without Us?
Some of these things have happened in more than one teaching centre and to other staff. Teachers left en masse in Morocco before we arrived, leaving a long letter of complaints with management that weren’t addressed and fell on to the next cohort of teachers (us). Other teaching staff also suffered harassment and illness, weren’t able to make complaints and were forced to leave mid-term, which is why I was determined to speak out. I don’t want this to happen to anyone else.
It’s hard for me to understand how and why this is allowed to happen in an organisation that prides itself on its commitment to Equality, Diversity and Inclusion around the world; is a ‘Disability Confident’ employer; and has Valuing People, Integrity, Mutuality, Creativity, and Professionalism as its core values. Good policy may as well not exist if it is not applied automatically or proactively or consistently, and cannot be applied through dialogue by the people it’s designed to protect. It causes more harm than good if employees, especially those with the least power and/or those who are ill or disabled, have to spend their unpaid and already compromised time advocating unsuccessfully for basic rights in an inevitably, increasingly-hostile working environment – when they just want to get on with their job like everyone else. Unless good policy is more about good PR, and protecting reputations overrides the well-being and contribution of employees.
Since we have not been allowed to speak up through internal processes or directly with staff at any point, I have outlined again some of the specific problems faced since asking for support five years ago, where I believe improvements are both “possible and necessary” (attached). The emotional and mental labour involved in carefully documenting and repeating these issues, without them being addressed or amends made, is another barrier to disability equality and inclusion.
I think you have already received my grievance report and supporting documents via my MP. I have also attached some of the emails received from my DSAR, as evidence.
Best wishes,
Emily
I just wanted to clarify that the above is not a reflection on Vietnam or Morocco because senior management are almost all British.