And the States Complaints Board found that the woman, known as Mrs X, was wrongly denied ill-health retirement, despite her request for it.
The States Employment Board, which is responsible for employing all States staff, said in its response that Mrs X, who was 63 when she left her job at the unnamed school in 2012, was never refused ill-health retirement.
Instead, the SEB said that she was advised that her ‘application was unlikely to succeed’ because she had not exhausted all treatment options.
Had her application been granted, it would have given her an extra 16 months of pensionable service.
According to a report from the complaints board lodged with the States, the complainant claimed that her health began to deteriorate in 2012.
She approached the school’s head teacher saying she had been losing dexterity and that her eyesight was deteriorating and that she was worried, as a laboratory assistant dealing with dangerous chemicals, that she posed a risk to herself and to pupils.
In 2014 she was diagnosed with hypersensitivity pneumonitis – an illness caused by exposure to hazardous chemicals. Its symptoms include swelling of the joints and shortness of breath.
Mrs X was taken to hospital suffering with breathlessness and spent time in a coma on a life-support machine. She was in hospital for four months and eventually needed six months of physiotherapy in order to be able to sit upright again.
In comments lodged following the complaint board’s findings, Constable Len Norman, as chairman of the States Privileges and Procedures Committee, which is in charge of States standards, strongly criticised the SEB for its response to Mrs X complaint, labelling it ‘poorly balanced, highly selective’ and without context.
He added that ‘such a rigid approach does not reflect well on the States as an employer, especially when the employee concerned has worked tirelessly for the States and demonstrated a strong work ethic’.
He said: ‘The reward for her going the extra mile was to be penalised by the system and, as a final insult, not even to be considered for a retrospective review.
Such a review, while potentially producing a modest adjustment in income for Mrs X, would be an entirely appropriate response by the SEB in acknowledging her dedication and years of service, and would go some way towards redressing the poor duty of care she was given by the States as an employer.’
In documents published this week, the States Complaints Board said it agreed with the decision not to grant Mrs X ill-health retirement based on the evidence presented in 2012.
However, it found that the school’s head teacher and States HR officials did not properly advise and support Mrs X and inform her of the various options available when she started feeling ill.
It found that ‘dedicated, stoical’ employees who ‘try to endure’ illness, like Mrs X, should not be adversely affected when they apply for ill-health retirement. It requested that Mrs X’s case be subject to a retrospective review.
