Dismissal due to poor eyesight?

skintdragon

Rockporkchop wrote: »

Really sorry to read of your predicament OP, I do hope your eyesight is fully restored soon. I was just researching laser eye surgery this morning, this really makes you think.

Was the problem caused by negligence on the part of the surgeon or was it one of the "side effects" you are warned about before having the surgery? Just wondering whether you are able to claim compensation at all for loss of earnings, if it came to it.

I would say that like anything in life there is a RISK that surgery may not go to plan, or the results may not quite be what you'd expect (the same goes for plastic surgery... you get the picture) . Laser eye surgery does not every guarantee 100% vision, and certainly the probablility of things going wrong is small, but it does happen. I don't think the surgeon will be deemed negligent under the circumstances, seeing as results of any procedure can vary from one person to another. What might work for one person may not work for another.

katsu

I'm interested in Daisy's post as employers do terminate people's contracts if they believe there is no reasonable prospect of the person being able to return to work, even if not all the company sick pay has been exhausted.

Your prognosis will be important there, as will the support that Access to Work, for example, can offer.

Working temporarily on reception would keep you going into work and seeing people, rather than at home worrying. Do think about trying it and about involving your occupational health or some support like access to work as you find out more about your prognosis. It may be that with a giant screen, for example, and some special software or equipment, you can tolerate more screen time.

Do try not to worry too much. I hope it all works out OK.

SailorSam

They were talking on the Tv news earlier this evening it's 40yrs since an act was passed by parliament to give disabled people greater rights.
If they are saying 'cos of your eyesight you are now disabled it may be against that act to dismiss you, particularly as you can still use a computer.

Uncertain

katsu wrote: »

I'm interested in Daisy's post as employers do terminate people's contracts if they believe there is no reasonable prospect of the person being able to return to work, even if not all the company sick pay has been exhausted.

You will find that this depends on the terms under which the sick pay is offered.

Some (too many) contracts seek to make it "discretionary" which, if you think about it, doesn't really guarantee you any sick pay at all - apart from SSP! The employer may then be able to do as you suggest, subject to acting reasonably etc.

However in other contacts X months sick pay is a hard and fast right (obviously subject to providing proper certification etc). In this case it is a bit like having an insurance policy and, as Daisy says, the employer would be in breach of contract if they dismissed on health grounds before the sick pay had run out.

mjm3346

Horace wrote: »

Tama - do not cut your nose off to spite your face, if you are asked to be a receptionist consider it a) as a job b) that it is temporary and c) that it is harder for disabled people to find work if they are on the dole. If you are ridiculed by your colleagues, then keep a diary of what is said, by whom and when because it comes in very handy when you make a formal grievance. Mention Access to Work too because they can assist with adjustments and suggest ways of working which are less stressful on your eyes.

I agree that while reception may not be what you want, it offers a short term solution which gives more time while hopefully your sight improves so then a more permanent solution (screen/software adaptation etc) may not even be needed.
I really cannot imagine colleagues would ridicule you but as pointed out above you should not have to put up with it.

Indie_Kid

OP - I am visually impaired. (vision is slowly getting getting worse) According to an opthamologist I saw 18 months ago, it's recommended that every hour you take a 15 minute break from the computer. Do you do this?

Uncertain

jdturk wrote: »

If the OP is unable to do the job for the full time and the company are unable to make reasonable adjustments (which is what they are obliged to try and do under the DDA (note though that it is not at the detriment of the business operation)) then yes they can dismiss the OP for capability reasons.

A "reasonable adjustment" can include things like reduced hours or allowing job sharing. It depends on the nature and size of the business what is "reasonable". Rightly or wrongly an employer can never be certain that they have done all that will be considered "reasonable" until they have been taken to a Tribunal and won.

For example, an employer that has ten staff doing a very similar job and regularly asks some of them to do overtime will have an uphill battle saying it would cause unreasonable harm for one of them (covered by the DDA) to reduce to part time.

woody01

Tama wrote: »

Hello all, need some advise on whether my employer has the right to dismiss me, or whether I can ask for a redundancy package due to eyesight problems? Long story short, I am/was a Graphic Designer and had laser surgery on my eyes 2 months ago to cure short sightedness. The surgery has left me with vision problems that make it very difficult for me to work on a computer and I've been on sick leave ever since. More surgery might correct my problems or it might not. In any case, it will be at least another 2 to 3 months before I know if the additional surgery can go ahead.
I know that it's the duty of my employer to try and find other duties for me but realistically, there is nothing else I can do for them that doesn't involve working on a computer.
I'm getting to a point now where I have to face the fact that I might not ever be able to work as a Designer again. So with that in mind, would it just be better to discuss voluntary redundancy with them before they decide it for me?

This is not a redundancy situation.
You boss is well within his rights to dismiss you on medical grounds if you cannot perform the task you were employed for.

SailorSam wrote: »

They were talking on the Tv news earlier this evening it's 40yrs since an act was passed by parliament to give disabled people greater rights.
If they are saying 'cos of your eyesight you are now disabled it may be against that act to dismiss you, particularly as you can still use a computer.

Oh c'mon!
Surely you don't actually believe that do you?

Indie_Kid

Short-sightedness isn't a disability as it can be corrected by glasses.

Uncertain

sh1305 wrote: »

Short-sightedness isn't a disability as it can be corrected by glasses.

That isn't the issue.

The OP has problems resulting from an operation that attempted to cure the short-sightedness.

It is possible that if this cannot be corrected it may amount to a disability. Ultimately that is a medical judgement to be made over a period of time by doctors.