THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF:	2600/06

CLAIMANT:			Leigh Blair

RESPONDENT:		Almac Sciences Group

DECISION ON A PRE-HEARING REVIEW
The decision of the tribunal is that the claimant has not proved that she was a disabled person within the meaning of Section 1 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and that part of her claim is dismissed.  There is not a preliminary issue to be heard in relation to the statutory grievance procedure.

Constitution of Tribunal:
Vice President(sitting alone):	Mrs M Price

Appearances:
The claimant in person.
The respondent was represented by Ms L Toolan, of Engineering Employers’ Federation.

1.	There had been two issues set out in the Notice for a pre-hearing review, namely:-

(1)	Whether the claimant had a disability within the meaning of Section 1 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

(2)	Whether the claimant is entitled to present a claim to the industrial tribunal in view of the provisions of Article 19(2) and (3) of the Employment (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 regarding the requirement to present a grievance in writing to the employer and waiting 28 days before presenting a claim to the tribunal.

2.	The claimant confirmed that her claim in relation to disability discrimination and sex discrimination were to be regarded as part of her claim of redundancy/unfair dismissal.  As such they were not claims relating to other periods of her employment and Ms Toolan conceded that in that case there was no need for a statutory grievance as she had lodged a claim in relation to her dismissal.

3.	The claimant gave evidence and also I have had an opportunity to read her GP notes and records as well as a report from Doctor Philip McCrea who is a Occupational Health Consultant and had seen the claimant on 27 April 2007.

4.	The claimant stated that she had suffered from depression since 1999 and it was periodic in nature.  She said that things were much worse in October 2004 when she and her husband separated and then divorced.  She was off work for one month in October and was prescribed anti depressants.  There was one prescription on 17 October 2005 for one month’s supply of tablets and then on 15 November there was another prescription for 14 days tablets.  No other anti depressants were prescribed for her until February 2007, which is a period of 15 months.  The claimant said that she had been pregnant and had a baby during that period, but it still would leave a period of some six months where she was able to function without anti depressants.  She stated that she had panic attacks and periods of dizzy spells.  She said there were times she felt very down and she would become confused.  She did go to work during that period and said that she had some difficulties at work because sometimes she felt she was not concentrating as well as she should be.  

5.	In answer to a question from the Chairman, the claimant said that she did some general housework and her mother helped her out.  She had a car and drove to work and she took her children to school at the bottom of the road by car.  She picked her daughter up at lunch time and took her to her mother’s.  She had a second daughter who was born in January 2006 and she said that she had found it difficult to organise herself in the household with the baby.  It was seen from the medical notes that the claimant is now going for counselling in relation to her depression.  Her maternity leave ended on 11 June 2007 and she said that although she wanted to return to work she was still suffering from panic attacks and she is on sick leave because the doctor thinks she is suffering from postnatal depression.

6.	Doctor McCrea produced a report and also gave evidence.  He stated that he considered that she had an adjustment reaction, in other words she had a reaction to various stressors in her life.  There was a family history of mental health and she told him that she was a worrier.  He drew attention to the periods she was able to cope without anti depressants and in answer to a question from the Vice President he stated that the dose of anti depressants she was on in 2005 was not a high dose.  Doctor McCrea drew attention to the various factors that would be regarded as having a substantial adverse effect in a case of clinical depression, namely:-

(1)	Intermittent loss of consciousness and associated confused behaviour.

(2)	Persistent inability to remember the names of familiar people, such as families or friends.

(3)	Inability to adapt after a reasonable period to minor change in work routine.

(4)	Inability to write a cheque without assistance.

(5)	Considerable difficulty in following a short sequence, such as a simple recipe or a brief list of domestic tasks.

7.	Having heard the claimant’s evidence, she has not proved to this tribunal that her symptoms of depression are such that they have a substantial adverse effect on her day-to-day activities.  She has been able to cope with the demands of a responsible position in the respondent company until May 2006, albeit she had one month off for difficulties during her period of marital breakdown in 2004.  She can drive a car, she can look after one and then two small children.  She stated that she did go out with friends when they invited her to do so.  She has a partner who assists her and she has retained a home which she has been able to continue to look after.  I am aware that there are no psychiatric reports on the claimant and she is relying on her GP notes and records.  

8.	With the evidence which has been presented before me, I do not find that the claimant is a disabled person within the meaning of Section 1 of the Disability Discrimination Act.  She has a depressive illness which is mild according to Doctor McCrea’s report.  She is not on continuous medication and she is trying, with the assistance of her doctor, to manage this condition without medication.  There are the additional strains of bringing up a young family, but she is able to look after the children and to drive a car and organise her life around the family home.  The effects of her condition are not sufficiently substantial to lead to the conclusion that she is a disabled person for the purposes of the Act.  Her claims of sex discrimination and redundancy/unfair selection will go forward for a hearing, but the claim of disability discrimination is dismissed.

Vice President:

Date and place of hearing:	2 July 2007, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: