Advice needed re: Disability Discrimination Act

Savvy_Sue

I suppose they may see crutches as a H&S issue, could be a trip hazard to others etc. but a bit short-sighted IMO.

Sambucus_Nigra

dizzyblonde82 wrote: »

My employer said that they couldn't risk me having an accident whilst on crutches at work, my employer only referred me to OH once I had returned to work and the first time I saw them in 2008 they couldn't offer any advice, in 2009 my employer chose not to refer me as they had had a report from my ortho surgeon and then they referred me to OH in Oct 10.

I have been back at work for 6 weeks following my last op and am due to have a meeting with the HR department in January to review my attendance at work and I am trying to find out more information on what they can/can't do before this meeting.

As mentioned - I would ask to see those risk assessments.

I would also have the dates detailed where you were signed as fit to go back and willing to work; but they wouldn't let you - which I would request was taken off my total sick figures because this is akin to the employer not making reasonable adjustments and forcing you to stay home; as you weren't actually signed off sick at this point.

I would also have suggestions of reasonable adjustments that could have been made at this time, such as moving your workstation, or giving you extra space etc; so that you could have been there working.

paddedjohn

uncertain wrote: »

what an utterly offensive response to the op's situation. :mad:

You would of course like that degree of disability and six major operations to go with it?

No, thought not!

why is it an utterly offensive remark?? I do wish i had a job that paid me for doing nothing. If i was off on the sick and it wasnt my employers fault then why should they pay me?
The op is a very lucky person to have such terms in her contract.

Uncertain

paddedjohn wrote: »

why is it an utterly offensive remark?? I do wish i had a job that paid me for doing nothing. If i was off on the sick and it wasnt my employers fault then why should they pay me?
The op is a very lucky person to have such terms in her contract.

No it is not "lucky" at all!

Many jobs include a number of benefits in addition to the salary. These may be extensive sick pay, private health insurance, life insurance, company car, free meals or whatever. It is the total package that you sign on to if they offer and you choose to take a job with that employer.

Company sick pay is, in effect, a type of insurance. If you don't get any then you could, if you choose, take out private insurance to give you similar protection.

Where I get very angry indeed is if either the employee goes sick when they are not or the employer tries to wriggle out of paying the agreed sick pay when somebody is genuinely ill. Both in my view are equally dishonest.

In this case the OP is clearly sick but the employer, having offered the job with these benefits, is now trying to avoid honouring them.

If you wish you had a job with these sort of benefits then perhaps you should have paid more attention at school!

AnonymousForObviousReason

Emmzi wrote: »

I work in HR. Your employer's offer sounds reasonable to me. While you say you are "entitled to" a certain amount of sick pay - this is only wage wise - anyone with over 10 days of a year, say, I would be looking at to see if they are able to fulfil the terms off their contract. With a condition such as your I might add 50 or even 100% - but you would still be way over my trigger points for dismissal.

Your employer is also being flexible - you can work extra when you are able.

To be blunt - in your position, with no prospect of a full recovery, the options are
a) some work (where you are)
b) JSA
c) Some work in a non physical environment but I struggle to think what
d) a view on DLA/ IS - but this is very difficult to claim

I would have a good think about what I see as a generous offer from your employer - they are certainly far more lenient that I would be in a commercial organisation.

You work in HR? Not sure you should be...

" but you would still be way over my trigger points for dismissal." Do you have any understanding of employment law in general or DDA in particular? Your idiocy is WAY over MY trigger point for you're fired.

Anyway, have you spoken about alternatives like working from home, or extra hours so you can have more rest days?

dizzyblonde82

AnonymousForObviousReason wrote: »

Anyway, have you spoken about alternatives like working from home, or extra hours so you can have more rest days?

Unfortunately my role is not one that can be done from home and cannot work extra hours as I only have childcare available from 8:50am to 5:15pm - I work 9 until 5.

I am currently working towards a degree qualification which will help me add to my skills base and hoping that I will be able to find a job in the future which will allow me to work from home when necessary.

Emmzi

AnonymousForObviousReason wrote: »

You work in HR? Not sure you should be...

" but you would still be way over my trigger points for dismissal." Do you have any understanding of employment law in general or DDA in particular? Your idiocy is WAY over MY trigger point for you're fired.

Anyway, have you spoken about alternatives like working from home, or extra hours so you can have more rest days?

Do you have any actual facts or examples to back up your abuse, or is it just a general rant? Would you like to state your own background aand expand on your opinion?

I am always happy to learn but not to be abused with no substance behind it.

AnonymousForObviousReason

Emmzi wrote: »

Do you have any actual facts or examples to back up your abuse, or is it just a general rant? Would you like to state your own background aand expand on your opinion?

I am always happy to learn but not to be abused with no substance behind it.

I'm not sure it should be down to me to teach you the basics of your job (and this is the basics) but no doubt you'll help me when I have some simple code to write.

The bit that irritated me most was when you said:

With a condition such as your I might add 50 or even 100% - but you would still be way over my trigger points for dismissal.

You don't have trigger points for dismissal in any case but especially when it comes to the Equality Act. Can't wait for you to come out with that one in a tribunal.


I'm glad you're happy to be abused where there is substance, this would be employment law in general and specifically the Disability Discrimination Act (1995) which would have covered the OP and is now part of the Equality Act (2010). I cannot stress how unforgivable it is for you not to have a passing understanding of these laws as a HR worker who is making decisions on terminating employment. (You even go on to slate the OP company for not understanding these).

FYI: The Equality Act (EA) has merged a number if different discrimination laws and regulations into one (including disability discrimination act). It is expected that there will be a number of high profile cases in order to get the points across to employers, you have been warned. It also covers people that are 'guilty' by association. So you need to stop dismissing those people who are caring for their disabled child, when they pass your arbitrary set number of days that trigger your dismissals.

The part I was specifically thinking of in the EA was the part that covers "terms of employment including pay". Reducing the persons hour because they 'may' go off sick due to a disability in future, directly contravenes this. If it was done in agreement with the employee because it was felt that reducing the hours would benefit their health or help them continue their employment, that would be okay but that is not the reason in this case.

If this ends in dismissal and is found to be an unfair due to discrimination at a tribunal where the company didn't make reasonable adjustments they face a 25% increase in payment. The fact that the OP wants to return to work but is being stopped for some (unspecified) reason indicates the company are not making reasonable adjustments to accommodate the OP because it's not difficult to accommodate someone with crutches in an office situation.


My background is 2 years of training in contract and employment law (a number of years ago). I'm a manager for a number of people (although as you illustrate a job should not be taken as an indicator of anything), I've dismissed a number of people including those with disabilities (all fairly, only one went to tribunal which was found to be fair). I am on the Equality & Diversity board of my company, which means I need to have regular updates on all this. Finally common sense plays a large part.


I stress that you are a liability to your company. Please request training on the Equality Act before you ruin more peoples lives through further unfair dismissals (your post indicates you've done this type of thing before) and you cost your company (quite rightly) a lot of cash at tribunal (or worse some chancer takes advantage of your ignorance to make a quick buck).

AnonymousForObviousReason

dizzyblonde82 wrote: »

Unfortunately my role is not one that can be done from home and cannot work extra hours as I only have childcare available from 8:50am to 5:15pm - I work 9 until 5.

I am currently working towards a degree qualification which will help me add to my skills base and hoping that I will be able to find a job in the future which will allow me to work from home when necessary.

I wonder if your HR meeting is any more than a welcome back to work are you sure you're okay can we do anything else to help. In the meeting I would raise the suggestion from your Manager and say that you didn't like it, the HR people should backtrack wildly on that and say they (the manager) was only trying to help and gloss over it.

Rather than worry over Christmas could you call them and ask to move the meeting forward to this/next week or ask for more details of what the meeting is about?

teabelly

If you're on crutches then you are at greater risk if a fire breaks out in the building as you won't be able to get out of there quickly. I don't think it is that mad for an employer to exclude someone who is on crutches. Again crutches need to be stowed somewhere safely so they don't trip someone else up. It just depends on the office environment. If it is single floor and open plan and you're near a fire exit then the exclusion doesn't make sense. If the office is a narrow crowded ones in an older buildings with stairs etc then it becomes more of a potential source of accidents. Especially as you said you previously injured your knee at work anyway. Plus there is all the day to day activities of getting yourself drinks, food, loo visits. On crutches that is more complicated. I think they're considering your comfort and welfare really.

I'd take their offer but ask if you can go back to full time once you have had 6 or 12 months trouble free.