Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • dori2o
    • By dori2o 6th Oct 16, 11:30 AM
    • 7,021Posts
    • 11,791Thanks
    dori2o
    Reasonable adjustments yet again
    • #1
    • 6th Oct 16, 11:30 AM
    Reasonable adjustments yet again 6th Oct 16 at 11:30 AM
    I'm off work at the moment but will be returning before the end of the month, by which time I'll have been off approx 3 months.

    I've been advised that one of my reasonable adjustments has been removed during the time I've been off as 'it doesn't fit with the current business plan' in the area that I work.

    This will have an impact on how I manage my chronic health problem.

    I've not been involved in any discussion regarding the removal of this adjustment.

    I was under the impression hat any changes to reasonable adjustments had to be by agreement of both parties and that they couldn't simply be removed.

    I've already had to file 2 grievances regarding the employers failure to make reasonable adjustments due to previous issues I've had with them.

    Any advice regarding this would be appreciated.
    To equate judgement and wisdom with occupation is at best . . . insulting.
Page 2
    • Darksparkle
    • By Darksparkle 6th Oct 16, 4:19 PM
    • 3,403 Posts
    • 2,106 Thanks
    Darksparkle
    I can't remember the exact term they used but do you have one of those reasonable adjustment passports (I think that's what they call it).

    Is it not possible to move up to the higher floors? I know you said your disability prevented it but when I worked in the contact centre we had a manager who couldn't walk up or down stairs. Normally he used the lift and in case of emergencies he has a chair that we were trained to use.
    • Manxman in exile
    • By Manxman in exile 6th Oct 16, 4:37 PM
    • 258 Posts
    • 138 Thanks
    Manxman in exile
    I've heard of someone with a disability moving office to upper floors. Their colleagues were trained to use what I think was called an "evac" chair to get them downstairs in an emergency.


    During routine fire drills it was discovered that use of the evac chair simply obstructed other staff from using the fire escapes safely. So a choice had to be made between leaving the person with a disability until last in event of a fire (assuming there were still colleagues to assist them) or letting them remain in a ground floor office.


    Not surprisingly, they stayed on the ground floor.
    • Darksparkle
    • By Darksparkle 6th Oct 16, 4:43 PM
    • 3,403 Posts
    • 2,106 Thanks
    Darksparkle
    I've heard of someone with a disability moving office to upper floors. Their colleagues were trained to use what I think was called an "evac" chair to get them downstairs in an emergency.


    During routine fire drills it was discovered that use of the evac chair simply obstructed other staff from using the fire escapes safely. So a choice had to be made between leaving the person with a disability until last in event of a fire (assuming there were still colleagues to assist them) or letting them remain in a ground floor office.


    Not surprisingly, they stayed on the ground floor.
    Originally posted by Manxman in exile
    Wasn't an issue for him thankfully.
    • dori2o
    • By dori2o 6th Oct 16, 6:53 PM
    • 7,021 Posts
    • 11,791 Thanks
    dori2o
    Happiness or reasonable adjustments, whats your preference?
    Originally posted by ohreally
    Sorry, you misunderstand (or maybe I put it badly).

    What I was trying to say is I don't want these adjustments just for the sake of vanity OR happiness at work, I want the adjustments to allow me to get through the working week without wanting to cut my leg off, or needing to leave early because I can't control the pain, or needing to have significant amounts of time off because the pain has reached unbearable levels and due to mental fatigue/stress/depression I simply cannot deal with it.

    I'm not asking for something just because it makes the work more enjoyable (I actually quite like the work anyway), I want the adjustments to help manage something that I have little control of.

    Regarding working on the upper floors, I used to work up there, even with my disability. However, there was an issue with ensuring sufficient numbers of evac chair users being available on the floor at all times when I was in work.

    There were only 4 trained evac chair ops and they could gather no more volunteers. Guidelines suggest that no single person evacuates someone in a chair over more then 2-3 floors and if the person is being evacuated over more floors then it is done by a number of evac chair operators in tandem.

    As they couldn't guarantee having that many people in all the time due to different shifts, annual leave/sick absence etcit was decided that I cannot work above the 3rd floor, where only 1 evac operator would be required to evacuate me and so they can manage for shifts/leave etc better.

    Whats really annoying is that every time I get things settled and I am able to get on with work without much fuss, someone within the department does or says something which changes everything, I end up then having to fight to get back into a position where I am able to work.

    I'm damn good at what I do. I like the job I do. I just want to be left alone for long enough to be able to do it.

    It would be very easy given my condition to give up, quit work, claim ESA, and sit on my backside forever more. I'd hate it as I prefer to be doing something, but it would be very easy to do.
    Last edited by dori2o; 06-10-2016 at 6:55 PM.
    To equate judgement and wisdom with occupation is at best . . . insulting.
    • sangie595
    • By sangie595 6th Oct 16, 7:11 PM
    • 2,735 Posts
    • 4,276 Thanks
    sangie595
    I may be misremembering, but I think the OP has a long and varied posting history on reasonable adjustments here and elsewhere, including the fact that they can't use an evac cassie because it causes them pain.

    I'm sorry but I am going to have to vote with the "I'm sorry if it sounds harsh, but..." brigade. There is no way that a reasonable adjustment goes to the extent of organising a business around a person with a disability, no matter how large an employer it is, and whether it is public sector or not. You are effectively arguing that they should organise their business and their work teams around your need to be distracted. Sorry, but that is entirely unreasonable as an expectation.

    Reasonable adjustments go both ways. It isn't a case of the employer makes all the running and you just tell them what you want. It has to cut both ways. You wanted a relocation to another office/ team because you couldn't cope with the situation being on an upper floor. Fair enough. But you then have to accept that the work you do is dictated by that choice. Reasonable adjustments aren't pick and mix counters. You must be willing to accept change too. Wanting more interesting work because it suits your needs, when your team don't get that choice, is expecting special treatment. And again, reasonable adjustments are not special treatment. They are designed to ensure a more level playing field for people with disabilities to do the job that is their role. Your role now is one line, not three. Like your colleagues.

    And if you want to fit in with your team, then you also need to accept that they are not going to appreciate your getting special treatment just because you have a disability. I'm sure they'd like to be similarly distracted and have stimulating work environments. Doesn't everyone? Their wants are no less important than yours. But they have a job to do And that job is dictated by the employers business needs. So is yours. Reasonable adjustments are not designed to keep you in a job. They are to enable you to do the job. And that job is the one the employer needs doing. Not the one that would ideally suit you in your circumstances.

    It seems that this saga of reasonable adjustments has a long and varied history. Keep pushing, and never giving an inch yourself, and you are going to push yourself right out of a job. Sorry, but that is the plain truth of it. You cannot have everything you want.

    And just in case you think that this is the typical advice given by the able bodied who don't understand your situation at all... Don't even go there. We could trade sagas of pain, mobility, evac chairs and conditions until the cows come home. So I do understand exactly where you are coming from. I also understand 11 on a scale of 1-10! So I am advising you based on being in the same type of situation. My employer has been great at reasonable adjustments. More than great. But that isn't simply because they are a good employer. It is also because the lengths that I have gone to - the quid pro quo - are part of the story. It takes two to tango. It takes two to make reasonable adjustments work.
    • dori2o
    • By dori2o 6th Oct 16, 9:56 PM
    • 7,021 Posts
    • 11,791 Thanks
    dori2o
    I may be misremembering, but I think the OP has a long and varied posting history on reasonable adjustments here and elsewhere, including the fact that they can't use an evac cassie because it causes them pain.

    I'm sorry but I am going to have to vote with the "I'm sorry if it sounds harsh, but..." brigade. There is no way that a reasonable adjustment goes to the extent of organising a business around a person with a disability, no matter how large an employer it is, and whether it is public sector or not. You are effectively arguing that they should organise their business and their work teams around your need to be distracted. Sorry, but that is entirely unreasonable as an expectation.

    Reasonable adjustments go both ways. It isn't a case of the employer makes all the running and you just tell them what you want. It has to cut both ways. You wanted a relocation to another office/ team because you couldn't cope with the situation being on an upper floor. Fair enough. But you then have to accept that the work you do is dictated by that choice. Reasonable adjustments aren't pick and mix counters. You must be willing to accept change too. Wanting more interesting work because it suits your needs, when your team don't get that choice, is expecting special treatment. And again, reasonable adjustments are not special treatment. They are designed to ensure a more level playing field for people with disabilities to do the job that is their role. Your role now is one line, not three. Like your colleagues.

    And if you want to fit in with your team, then you also need to accept that they are not going to appreciate your getting special treatment just because you have a disability. I'm sure they'd like to be similarly distracted and have stimulating work environments. Doesn't everyone? Their wants are no less important than yours. But they have a job to do And that job is dictated by the employers business needs. So is yours. Reasonable adjustments are not designed to keep you in a job. They are to enable you to do the job. And that job is the one the employer needs doing. Not the one that would ideally suit you in your circumstances.

    It seems that this saga of reasonable adjustments has a long and varied history. Keep pushing, and never giving an inch yourself, and you are going to push yourself right out of a job. Sorry, but that is the plain truth of it. You cannot have everything you want.

    And just in case you think that this is the typical advice given by the able bodied who don't understand your situation at all... Don't even go there. We could trade sagas of pain, mobility, evac chairs and conditions until the cows come home. So I do understand exactly where you are coming from. I also understand 11 on a scale of 1-10! So I am advising you based on being in the same type of situation. My employer has been great at reasonable adjustments. More than great. But that isn't simply because they are a good employer. It is also because the lengths that I have gone to - the quid pro quo - are part of the story. It takes two to tango. It takes two to make reasonable adjustments work.
    Originally posted by sangie595
    You have no idea of the lengths I myself have gone to in this whole saga. You simply assume that I don't offer anything in return to the employer, when in actual fact the opposite is true and I often use my own time, unpaid, to offer various types of support to the team and wider business area. I'm also a point of contact for various aspects of the role, and the future development of digital customer services. Work which I often do within my own time (unpaid), for the benefit of the business, as they simply don't offer sufficient time to do the necessarywork during working hours.

    The fact is I had this adjustment in place already. Without warning, without discussion and without reason it's taken away despite it being one of the major factors why I have been able to remain in work for the past 12 months.

    There's no way it can be unreasonable based on the standard tests. It costs nothing, it requires no equipment, it's been proven to be beneficial in reducing/removing a barrier to work, I'm still doing the same role but providing a service to a greater pool of customers.. I'm not demanding that I be given all the interesting cases, in fact it wouldn't be possible as all calls/post are routed autromatically to the next available adviser regardless of what the query is. But by having the 3 lines of business rather than 1 guarantees that there will be a larger variation of work.

    If I wasn't in pain I'd gladly do all the boring work, in fact I'd relish it, but I'm not pain free and never will be again.

    You calim that reasonable adjustments are not there to enable you to keep a job, but actually they are in a way. Reasonable adjustments are designed to take away the barriers to work. One of my barriers is in respect of being able to manage chronic pain. The adjustment that has just been removed performed that exact role.

    By allowing me to take the calls from these other 2 lines of business is actually beneficial to the business.

    I'm simply asking that the employer fulfils their legal obligations to implement reasonable adjustments.

    As for what colleagues think, the colleagues I have understand the issues I face and are happy for me to be taking these calls. I do exactly the same job as them but to a wider audience. It also means they have someone to ask when they get a question regarding a subject they are yet to be trained in.
    To equate judgement and wisdom with occupation is at best . . . insulting.
    • takman
    • By takman 7th Oct 16, 12:01 AM
    • 1,528 Posts
    • 1,165 Thanks
    takman
    The fact is I had this adjustment in place already. Without warning, without discussion and without reason it's taken away despite it being one of the major factors why I have been able to remain in work for the past 12 months.
    Originally posted by dori2o
    You seem to be exaggerating to make it seem worse than it is. You said in your OP that your not returning to work until the end of the month but you know that your adjustment is being taken away, so they have given your warning. You were also told it's due to business needs, so they have given you a reason.

    If you consider that they have had to make alot of adjustments for you to be able to do your job. Training staff in the use of equipment to help you in an emergency, allowing you to work differently to your colleagues and all the time organising these adjustments costs them money. Then you say you have been off sick for 3 months which is a big cost and inconvenience for the business. I think they have done more than enough for you and if you find the job too mundane to keep you focused then maybe you should try and find a different job.
    • sangie595
    • By sangie595 7th Oct 16, 7:46 AM
    • 2,735 Posts
    • 4,276 Thanks
    sangie595
    You have no idea of the lengths I myself have gone to in this whole saga. That may be so. But none of that is mentioned in the lengthy posting history on various sites about this issue. All I can find is complaints about how unreasonable they have been to not give you the adjustments you want. You simply assume that I don't offer anything in return to the employer, when in actual fact the opposite is true and I often use my own time, unpaid, to offer various types of support to the team and wider business area. And so do many able-bodied people! That is not making an effort to work through a balance on reasonable adjustments. That is doing what many employees, regardless of disability status, do. And if you are working more than your paid hours to stay behind and help people in work, that is your choice. It is also odd, because civil servants usually claim time off in lieu for additional hours worked on their timesheets. I'm also a point of contact for various aspects of the role, and the future development of digital customer services.So that is part of your job. Even if you volunteered to be a point of contact. You took this on as part of the job. As do many people without disabilities. Doing a bit more than the bare minimum does not distinguish you from able bodied employees Work which I often do within my own time (unpaid), for the benefit of the business, as they simply don't offer sufficient time to do the necessarywork during working hours. You are a civil servant. If you work extra hours with authorisation then you are entitled to the time back, or, below certain grades, overtime. And nobody should be working overtime in their own time - that is your choice

    The fact is I had this adjustment in place already. So? Without warning, without discussion and without reason it's taken away They have given you warning and they have given you the reason - both of which are spelled out in your first post. So that is not true, is it? despite it being one of the major factors why I have been able to remain in work for the past 12 months. But you haven't stayed in work. You have been off sick for three months. Don't you think, apart from that being a very weak argument because it also isn't true, that they are going to start questioning whether the work itself and all those extra hours you say you have worked is the cause or a contributing factor to your time off sick? Or that the extra hours you say you work are not really a benefit when the other side of the balance is three months when you are off sick and everyone else is doing "your work" for you?

    There's no way it can be unreasonable based on the standard tests. It costs nothing, it requires no equipment, it's been proven to be beneficial in reducing/removing a barrier to work, I'm still doing the same role but providing a service to a greater pool of customers.. Of course it can be unreasonable. It hasn't proven beneficial in keeping you in work because you have been off for there months! They have told you that you need to be doing the same work as your team colleagues because this is how the business needs to be organised. The fact is costs nothing is irrelevant. You are expecting them to organise their business around your demands. That is unreasonable.I'm not demanding that I be given all the interesting cases, in fact it wouldn't be possible as all calls/post are routed autromatically to the next available adviser regardless of what the query is. You simply aren't getting it. The next available advisor is in another team. The team that do this type of advice! The team that you are not a member of.But by having the 3 lines of business rather than 1 guarantees that there will be a larger variation of work. I find it hard to believe that even with one type of business line, everyone phones up with the same query.

    If I wasn't in pain I'd gladly do all the boring work, in fact I'd relish it, but I'm not pain free and never will be again. That is not a reason for anything. And I am sorry, but you said that it isn't all boring work before, when challenged as to why all your colleagues should get the boring work and not you. You can't have it both ways.

    You calim that reasonable adjustments are not there to enable you to keep a job, but actually they are in a way. No I don't claim it, the law says it. They are not about you keeping your job over and above any other factor. Reasonable adjustments are designed to take away the barriers to work. No, they are there to provide support to take away barriers to your doing YOUR job, not any job that you fancy doing.One of my barriers is in respect of being able to manage chronic pain. It is not reasonable that an employer is supposed to provide you with distraction to take away or help you manage your chronic pain. That is not what they are about. If you need time to take medication - yes. If you work a bit slower because of pain - yes. To provide you with the job that you want to do to distract you - no. The adjustment that has just been removed performed that exact role.

    By allowing me to take the calls from these other 2 lines of business is actually beneficial to the business. No it isn't. Because it is not the way that they wish to deliver their business. It is the way you wish them to deliver their business. I can quiyte understand their position. Having teams together doing the same role is building expertise. There are benefits to having people doing the same job co-located. You are not co-located with those teams.

    I'm simply asking that the employer fulfils their legal obligations to implement reasonable adjustments. And I am telling you that you are expecting them to go beyond that, and sooner or later, they are going to be fed up of doing it.

    As for what colleagues think, the colleagues I have understand the issues I face and are happy for me to be taking these calls. I do exactly the same job as them but to a wider audience. It also means they have someone to ask when they get a question regarding a subject they are yet to be trained in And you can advise them on issues they are yet to be trained in if that is what you wish to do. But on the one line of enquiry! And even if they are happy for you to have the job that you want (which I kind of doubt - I suspect it is more likely that the complaints are to your managers when you are not there), it isn't a vote. This isn't a democracy, it is work. Something that they have been doing for the last three months, and which you haven't!.
    Originally posted by dori2o
    I'm sorry. I knew you wouldn't like being told this, but sympathy only goes so far. As do reasonable adjustments. They are not a passport to everything you want. There has to be an end. If this isn't it, then it won't be long in coming. Especially if your sickness rate is going to be increasing. You can hardly argue that they are working when you are off sick for such lengthy periods of time.

    I quite understand how working can be a distraction. So can box sets! Your employer isn't there to entertain you when you are in work, so that you don't feel as bad. And they aren't there to give you everything that you want. You can't simply dream up your ideal job and expect them to deliver it despite the fact that this is not how they work. They have organised their business in a particular way. They have tried it your way. And it doesn't work for them. As far as the law is concerned, they have done more than they needed to - now the law backs them. The law will never, disability or not, tell them how to deliver their business.

    An employer sets the rules of the business, and if you don't like it, that's tough. That is more or less what you said about junior doctors, isn't it? If they don't want to fulfil their contractual obligations then they can **** off? You have contractual obligations too. And your employer decides how to deliver their service, and you fulfil your obligations under that contract. What applies to junior doctors applies to you too. You might think that junior doctors are well paid and have great working conditions (which only demonstrates how little you know about junior doctors). But the rest of the working world thinks exactly the same thing about civil servants. It also isn't exactly true. But compared to what the vast majority of workers have to deal with, it is. Most people's employers would never go as far as yours have. I'm pretty safe in saying that almost none of them would go as far as you want your to. They don't get three months off sick without getting sacked. And they won't have a pension in place that provides for ill-health retirement either. You aren't lucky - nobody in this amount of pain is lucky. It's awful, I know. But you need to stop thinking that everything in the workplace is about you and what you want. It isn't. It's isn't for anybody. And the law is never going to support you in thinking that way. Instead of complaining that you don't want boring work to do, find ways of making it more interesting for yourself. And give some thought to the people on the other end of the phone, who certainly don't think that their problems are boring!
    • dori2o
    • By dori2o 7th Oct 16, 9:29 AM
    • 7,021 Posts
    • 11,791 Thanks
    dori2o
    I'm sorry. I knew you wouldn't like being told this, but sympathy only goes so far. As do reasonable adjustments. They are not a passport to everything you want. There has to be an end. If this isn't it, then it won't be long in coming. Especially if your sickness rate is going to be increasing. You can hardly argue that they are working when you are off sick for such lengthy periods of time.

    I quite understand how working can be a distraction. So can box sets! Your employer isn't there to entertain you when you are in work, so that you don't feel as bad. And they aren't there to give you everything that you want. You can't simply dream up your ideal job and expect them to deliver it despite the fact that this is not how they work. They have organised their business in a particular way. They have tried it your way. And it doesn't work for them. As far as the law is concerned, they have done more than they needed to - now the law backs them. The law will never, disability or not, tell them how to deliver their business.

    An employer sets the rules of the business, and if you don't like it, that's tough. That is more or less what you said about junior doctors, isn't it? If they don't want to fulfil their contractual obligations then they can **** off? You have contractual obligations too. And your employer decides how to deliver their service, and you fulfil your obligations under that contract. What applies to junior doctors applies to you too. You might think that junior doctors are well paid and have great working conditions (which only demonstrates how little you know about junior doctors). But the rest of the working world thinks exactly the same thing about civil servants. It also isn't exactly true. But compared to what the vast majority of workers have to deal with, it is. Most people's employers would never go as far as yours have. I'm pretty safe in saying that almost none of them would go as far as you want your to. They don't get three months off sick without getting sacked. And they won't have a pension in place that provides for ill-health retirement either. You aren't lucky - nobody in this amount of pain is lucky. It's awful, I know. But you need to stop thinking that everything in the workplace is about you and what you want. It isn't. It's isn't for anybody. And the law is never going to support you in thinking that way. Instead of complaining that you don't want boring work to do, find ways of making it more interesting for yourself. And give some thought to the people on the other end of the phone, who certainly don't think that their problems are boring!
    Originally posted by sangie595
    Lets get one thing straight, I may be off work right now but it has absolutely nothing to do with my medical condition.

    I'm off work right now because my 12 yr old daughter died.

    I do hope that this is an acceptable reason for you, or should I have gone back to work the day after she died just because I'm a civil servant?

    I enjoy my job. I enjoy working with the people I work with. I give far more than I take from the job, and I want to keep working. In order to ensure that I can keep on working and producing work to a very high standard, I will use any means necessary to ensure that this happens.
    To equate judgement and wisdom with occupation is at best . . . insulting.
    • sangie595
    • By sangie595 7th Oct 16, 9:56 AM
    • 2,735 Posts
    • 4,276 Thanks
    sangie595
    I am very sorry about your daughters death. But you see, I wasn't criticising the fact that you were off sick for three months. I was observing a fact that you have been off sick for three months. Despite the circumstances being tragic, it is still sick leave. And from previous posts, depression is one of your conditions too. I understand that this tragedy won't have helped you. But it also doesn't mean that you haven't been off sick for three months.

    And it doesn't change anything that I have said. But I think that last sentence is very telling. You will do anything to go back to work - provided, of course, that the work you go back to is what you want to do. If you aren't willing to give an inch, then sooner or later this will end badly.

    There's obviously no point in continuing this conversation. You want what you want. I have made it clear that that is a direction that abounds worth difficulty for you. If that isn't what got want to hear, you will do whatever you intended to do anyway.
    • dori2o
    • By dori2o 7th Oct 16, 10:06 AM
    • 7,021 Posts
    • 11,791 Thanks
    dori2o
    Actually it's not all sick absence, but thats not the point.

    You are not understanding, or are intentionally making comments that are untrue.

    I'm not trying to dictate what work I do, I'm trying to ensure that I am able to better manage being in pain all the time, and despite what you might think, my employer does have an obligation to provide adjustments to support this where they are reasonable. Not if they want to, not if they think they should, they have to. The Equality Act is very clear that it puts the obligation on the employer.

    If when I get back they have taken away these lines of business because they have something else in store that I am unaware of, then thats fine.

    But I should not be in a worse position now compared to how I was before I went off work.
    Last edited by dori2o; 07-10-2016 at 10:29 AM.
    To equate judgement and wisdom with occupation is at best . . . insulting.
    • takman
    • By takman 7th Oct 16, 10:47 AM
    • 1,528 Posts
    • 1,165 Thanks
    takman
    I enjoy my job. I enjoy working with the people I work with. I give far more than I take from the job, and I want to keep working. In order to ensure that I can keep on working and producing work to a very high standard, I will use any means necessary to ensure that this happens.
    Originally posted by dori2o
    At the end of the day you go to work to do work and get paid a certain amount for that work.

    Yes they have to provide reasonable adjustments but there will be a cost involved in managing this and providing training to other and implementing adjustments. So there will come a point when this cost is too much for the work you are doing so that means it becomes unreasonable.

    You seem to be acting like your untouchable and they legally have to move the earth to accommodate you, but this simply isn't true. If your job involves answering the phone all day then that is what you have to do. If you want to reply to letters but they already have enough people replying to letters then it's unreasonable to expect to do this.

    If your asking for a specific workstation setup, specialist equipment, extra breaks, more time etc to do your current job then that is fair enough and reasonable.
    Dictating to your employer what you want to do in your role is unreasonable. You can't expect your employer to create a job to your specification if they don't need it.

    If they allowed you to choose what you do at work and don't allow others people to do this then that is positive discrimination which is illegal!. So you what to quote the equality act then make sure you read up on positive discrimination.
    • Savvy_Sue
    • By Savvy_Sue 7th Oct 16, 9:51 PM
    • 36,807 Posts
    • 33,023 Thanks
    Savvy_Sue
    I've been advised that one of my reasonable adjustments has been removed during the time I've been off as 'it doesn't fit with the current business plan' in the area that I work.
    Originally posted by dori2o
    I'm not disagreeing with the general opinions expressed elsewhere in this thread, but I wonder how you've 'been advised', and whether that shows you a way forward here?

    If it's your line manager stating that this is the way it's going to be, and if as I think you say there's been no referral to Occ Health about it, then that may be worth requesting. I don't know. Whoever it is may not be aware why you have different lines of work, or of the impact on you of not having them.

    Or they may be very aware, and determined to manage you out.

    If it's one of your colleagues just saying something informal, then checking whether they've got that right is the first step.
    I'm a Board Guide on the Cutting Tax; Charities; Small Biz & Charity Organisers; and Silver Savers boards, which means I'm a volunteer to help the boards run smoothly, and I can move and merge threads there. However, do remember, Board Guides don't read every post. If you spot an inappropriate or illegal post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com. It is not part of my role to deal with reportable posts.

    Any views are mine and are not the official line of moneysavingexpert.com
    Still knitting! Current projects: 2 shawls, 2 pairs baby bootees,
    1 Wise Man Knitivity figure ...
    • antonic
    • By antonic 8th Oct 16, 9:12 AM
    • 1,722 Posts
    • 2,535 Thanks
    antonic
    I sympathise with the OP over their situation, buy as others have said the employer is only legally obliged to make reasonable adjustments.

    If you believe the adjustments arent reasonable then you can take legal action via an Employment Tribunal.

    The employer can refuse if the adjustments will cost to much :

    Cordell v FCO http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2011/0016_11_0510.html

    Be careful what you wish for and good luck.
    LBM Sept 2005 spoke to Payplan - brilliant !
    Dec 2005 debt £21.959.64 + HBOS Int £1769.32
    June 2013 debt £0.00
    DF status confirmed by email 10/07/13
    DFW Long Hauler 297
    • nicechap
    • By nicechap 8th Oct 16, 9:28 AM
    • 604 Posts
    • 1,605 Thanks
    nicechap
    ........

    and despite what you might think, my employer does have an obligation to provide adjustments to support this where they are reasonable. Not if they want to, not if they think they should, they have to. The Equality Act is very clear that it puts the obligation on the employer.

    ..........
    Originally posted by dori2o
    As you already appear to know what the answer is, one wonders why you have come here to ask for advice and take umbrage when the advice isn't to your liking.

    I suspect if I worked with you, I'd be jealous of you having variety in your day to day tasks when I don't. Maybe they are trying to make things fairer for everyone and more effective for the business.
    Quote was right and saw into the future.
    • Undervalued
    • By Undervalued 8th Oct 16, 12:54 PM
    • 2,076 Posts
    • 1,772 Thanks
    Undervalued
    I sympathise with the OP over their situation, buy as others have said the employer is only legally obliged to make reasonable adjustments.

    If you believe the adjustments arent reasonable then you can take legal action via an Employment Tribunal.

    The employer can refuse if the adjustments will cost to much :

    Cordell v FCO http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2011/0016_11_0510.html

    Be careful what you wish for and good luck.
    Originally posted by antonic
    Exactly.

    Those few sentences sum the situation up perfectly. Sadly I think they will be wasted on the OP.

    Much as I sympathise with his / her circumstances s/he seems to wildly overestimate the legal entitlement. I suspect it is only because s/he works in the public sector that s/he has received the level of adjustments that is claimed. That, coupled with the lengths of absence for sickness, family reasons or whatever must have pushed even their patience to the limit.

    Be very, very careful this doesn't backfire.

    I'm out!
    • t0rt0ise
    • By t0rt0ise 10th Oct 16, 8:35 PM
    • 2,818 Posts
    • 1,690 Thanks
    t0rt0ise
    I don't think anyone here will know what constitutes a reasonable adjustment and you need to get proper advice. In my experience Occupational Health are the best people to advise management about this. Are they not involved? Otherwise the union should help although some unions are better than others at understanding this sort of thing.

    I'm sorry about the loss of your daughter, that must be devastating.
    • Person_one
    • By Person_one 12th Oct 16, 1:39 PM
    • 26,010 Posts
    • 89,312 Thanks
    Person_one
    Lets get one thing straight, I may be off work right now but it has absolutely nothing to do with my medical condition.

    I'm off work right now because my 12 yr old daughter died.

    I do hope that this is an acceptable reason for you, or should I have gone back to work the day after she died just because I'm a civil servant?

    I enjoy my job. I enjoy working with the people I work with. I give far more than I take from the job, and I want to keep working. In order to ensure that I can keep on working and producing work to a very high standard, I will use any means necessary to ensure that this happens.
    Originally posted by dori2o
    I think this is very unfair, your OP stated that you had been off for 3 months and you talked at length about your chronic pain.

    Its not unreasonable for somebody to assume that's the reason for the time off unless you tell them otherwise, and your comment about going back the next day because you're a civil servant is just out of nowhere, for no reason.

    I really really hope you weren't 'reserving' the fact of your daughter's death to throw at posters who brought up the 3 months off sick.
    • Undervalued
    • By Undervalued 12th Oct 16, 3:55 PM
    • 2,076 Posts
    • 1,772 Thanks
    Undervalued
    I don't think anyone here will know what constitutes a reasonable adjustment and you need to get proper advice. In my experience Occupational Health are the best people to advise management about this. Are they not involved? Otherwise the union should help although some unions are better than others at understanding this sort of thing.

    I'm sorry about the loss of your daughter, that must be devastating.
    Originally posted by t0rt0ise
    On the contrary. I think a number of us here have a very good understanding about what constitutes "reasonable adjustments". The problem is that the OP doesn't and won't listen to anybody who does.

    In a way the title they gave this thread sums that up "Reasonable adjustments yet again"!
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,769Posts Today

7,616Users online

Martin's Twitter