THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF:	1307/04

CLAIMANT:			Manus Donaghy

RESPONDENTS:		1.	Council for Catholic Maintained Schools
2.	Board of Governors
3.	Dean Maguire College

DECISION ON A PRE-HEARING REVIEW
The decision of the tribunal is that from 1998 to January 2003 the claimant was not suffering from a psychiatric clinically well-recognised illness.  However from 2003 onwards the claimant has suffered at least one episode reaching the criteria of major depressive episode in 2003 and has had significant problems with depression.  Subsequent to 2003, the claimant’s depressive illness had a long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out day-to-day activities.  With effect from and after January 2003 the claimant has a disability within the meaning of Section 1 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (sitting alone):		Ms Crooke
Appearances:
The claimant appeared in person and represented himself.
The respondents were represented by Mr D Dunlop, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Napier & Sons, Solicitors.

1.	The legal issue before the tribunal

1.1	The legal issue before the tribunal was:-

“Whether the claimant has a disability within the meaning of Section 1 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.”

2.	Sources of evidence

2.1	The tribunal had before it a bundle of medical evidence, including reports from Doctor B Mangan and Doctor P Curran, both Consultant Psychiatrists.  The tribunal also heard evidence from Mr Donaghy on his own behalf.

3.	Facts found

3.1	The claimant is a full-time teacher of art and technology and design at the third respondent college.  

3.2	Between the years of 1997 and 2003 the claimant had a number of issues in his work environment.  During this time he also developed irritable bowel syndrome.  His difficulties culminated in him being put in the position of being an unsatisfactory teacher in September 2002.  This meant that his teaching performance was monitored by other teachers and management of the third respondent.

3.3	The claimant was absent from work from January 2003 to June 2003.  

3.4	There was an unsatisfactory meeting set up in September 2003 between the claimant’s union representative, the principal and the educational officer of the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS).

3.5	Nothing was resolved at the next meeting and the claimant was off work for three to four weeks as a result of a barium enema investigation.  

3.6	Thereafter he returned to work for two weeks and after a week back at work the principal informed the claimant that the investigation into his ability as a teacher was once more ongoing.  The claimant took sickness leave for a month in November 2003.  

3.7	From December 2003 until the following June 2004 the claimant was on sick leave again.  However in or around 8 June 2004 the third respondent suspended the claimant temporarily.

3.8	The symptoms relied on by the claimant as constituting him disabled were as follows :-

(a)	The long-term effects of occupational stress and depression with the resulting impact on his physical, social and work functioning and performance included a range of anxiety and depressive symptoms such as sleep disturbance; irritability; general nervousness; emotional debility; lethargy; impaired concentration; forgetfulness; reduced libido and loss of self-confidence.

(b)	There were also gastrointestinal problems that led him to experience loss of self esteem, sadness, anxiety and depression as well as day-to-day discomfort and physical pain.  The claimant considered his symptoms were aggravated for a considerable period of time by irritable bowel syndrome.

3.9	The claimant also had a glucose intolerance condition.  

4.	To be classed as a disabled person under the Act the person must have:-

(a)	a physical or mental impairment which;

(b)	had a substantial and long-term;

(c)	adverse effect on;

(d)	normal day-to-day activities.

5.	In reaching its decision, the tribunal has ruled out the symptoms undergone by the claimant in the period from 1998 to January 2003 as the claimant admitted in cross-examination that he was discharging his job as a teacher, although perhaps not to the highest standards.  Therefore the tribunal does not consider that the physical  and mental impairments discussed by the claimant had any substantial adverse effect on the claimant’s normal day-to-day activities.

6.	The question before the tribunal was therefore whether or not the claimant had a mental impairment which had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his normal day-to-day activities such as to render him a disabled person within the meaning of the Act.  A diagnosis of stress or depression by itself is not enough.  The condition must be clinically well-recognised.

7.	In reaching its decision the tribunal has had particular regard to the report of Doctor Brian Mangan of 27 September 2006 and Doctor P S Curran of 12 June 2006.  Both of these persons are Consultant Psychiatrists and both have examined the claimant.  It is common case between the two reports that the claimant was diagnosed as suffering from a psychological adjustment disorder following stressful events in his school environment beginning in 1998.  Doctor Curran explains that these terms are used to describe a person ‘who suffers subjective distress after a disappointment, a failure, a loss (eg normal grief reaction after death of a loved one is an adjustment disorder or reaction), a pressure or stress’.  The stress that caused Mr Donaghy’s disorder was related to his adequacy as a teacher.  Essentially, Doctor Curran did not regard the claimant as being mentally ill.  Doctor Mangan took the view that while psychological adjustment disorders are classified into the International Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders in the F40 to F48 section of Neurotic Stress Related and Somatoform Disorders, he did not consider that from 1998 to the beginning of 2003 that the claimant was suffering from a clinically well-recognised illness.  However, Doctor Mangan diagnosed the claimant as suffering from a major depressive disorder of mild severity in accordance with ICD10 classifications, Section F32.0.  The claimant had at least one episode reaching the criteria of a major depressive episode throughout 2003. Overall, Doctor Mangan’s opinion was that the claimant’s depressive illness has had a long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities subsequent to 2003.  For this reason and based on the claimant’s evidence the tribunal finds the claimant to be a disabled person within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 from and after January 2003.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing:	22 September 2006, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: