Advice needed re: Disability Discrimination Act

AnonymousForObviousReason

teabelly wrote: »

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.

For people in wheelchairs, with crutches or that have other mobility issues, generally the practice is to have a position near the top of the stairs where they wait to be assisted by the fire department, or to wait for others to have passed before making their way down. (Yes sounds harsh but is sensible and only if on a higher floor obviously, you don't cart them up the top of the building )

It all comes down to reasonableness again, it would be fairly odd in an office working environment that the employer couldn't accommodate crutches. An umbrella/hat stand to hold crutches, a desk closer to loos, someone offering to get lunch, etc. Much better to have person working than all the problems that long term absence creates.

Emmzi

Anonymous I think you are reading too much into my post. I am also confused by your aggressive stance - you catch more wasps with honey than vinegar.

I thank you for expanding your point. I phrased poorly - "trigger point for dismissal" would be "trigger point at which I'd look at starting a process that may include dismissal". Which includes occ health, prognosis, consideration of IHR etc.

There *are* trigger points for considering when sick leave becomes too high.

There *are* points where adjustments become unreasonable.

I have *never* stated I dismiss based on number of days leave in isolation - but it DOES prompt the process of looking at a case in more detail. You make me sound inhuman - I'm harsh but I don't believe "you are protected by the law, it'll be alright" is a helpful stance to take when people are at serious risk of being dismissed, and need to consider compromise.

Regarding OPs return to work - you will note I suggest asking for the risk assessments. The reason for not returning yet is as yet unclear.

The DDA does not give some kind of carte blanche for people to remain in employment when they are unable to fulfil the basic terms of their contract. And "reasonable adjustments" vary for every case and every employer.

However we can both aagree we are glad we do not work together.

AnonymousForObviousReason

Emmzi:
*I only read what you put in your post (I concede it may be unclear and not what you meant, which is easily done). I also took your post to mean that from what you had read the employer was correct in their assessment and have grounds to dismiss OP - which would be unreasonable and wrong. I was commenting on the thread not in general terms as you seem to have been doing.

*I never described you as a wasp . I wasn't trying to catch anything - I was actually trying to undermine your post because it wasn't helpful or correct in the context of this thread.

*Aggressive stance is and due to working with ill informed people that have caused my team unnecessary stress, when far more simple action than threatening them with law would be better for all concerned.

*No a number of ill/sick days is the point when a manager (supported by HR) starts the discussion with the employee about sickness levels, why they are occurring and if appropriate what can be done to accommodate them - simple measures and flexibility have enabled me to cut levels by 1/2 in my sections.

* You're not harsh you're wrong in this case, if that's what you were commenting on - not sure now. OP, is protected in EA law in this case, unless they have missed something vital like they were faking it. OP did consider the compromise and rightly decided it was not reasonable and as others haven't been requested to do the same would be discrimination if this was forced or lead to dismissal. I'm not saying OP could sue as there has been nothing but an ill thought out idea from a manager making a suggestion.

*Telling people to take an unnecessary cut in hours and pay isn't helpful.

*Fail to see how the OP is unable to fulfil their basic contract in anything they have said or why they can't be reasonably accommodated (again they may have left out they are in the army and need to run 8 miles a day). They had some sick days over a number of years dismissal would be an over reaction.

* The EA, is there to ensure people are not discriminated against where there are reasonable actions that can be made. This is a subtle difference to your implied stance of being a block to stopping people being being fired.

It is also a false economy for a company to dismiss people where it can be avoided be that reason disabilities, attitudes or behavioural. The cost of dismissal, finding, employing and training someone runs into the thousands. It is far better (and less stressful) to get a person working productively. This doesn't even touch on the subject of cost to society in general.


I do worry about your self image, you use the terms, wasp, harsh, inhuman. Time for some reflection on how you think others view you and why? I'm sure you're a nice person.

Don't worry we wouldn't work together long but I'm sure you'd find something shortly.

Emmzi

Anonymous I've no intention of getting into your selective editing and general acerbicness where there was no need for it. My self image is fine thanks for your concern.

- EA does not protect people with disabilites from *ever* being dismissed
- ETs can be long drawn out painful processes for everyone involved and generally the organisation is better able to weather it than the individual
- As far as I can see OP does not have copy risk assessments yet
- As far as I can see OP has not had a further OH referal to discuss progress since initial referal
- She needs both of the above and to be at a stage where a longer term prognosis can be made in order for both her and her employer to make informed decisions- but going in fired up with a "no compromise" attitude will not help.

Retiring from thread, do feel free to make another attack if you wish.

dizzyblonde82

Emmzi wrote: »

- As far as I can see OP does not have copy risk assessments yet
- As far as I can see OP has not had a further OH referal to discuss progress since initial referal
- She needs both of the above and to be at a stage where a longer term prognosis can be made in order for both her and her employer to make informed decisions- but going in fired up with a "no compromise" attitude will not help.

No official risk assessment was carried out, I was just informed that I could not return to work whilst on crutches, I have requested further information from my HR department.

OH do not want to see me again - I went in November 2010 and they said that I was capable of doing my role with some adjustments to lifting, use of stairs and excessive walking.

I do not have a 'no compromise' attitude - I am merely trying to find out my rights before attending a meeting and agreeing to any changes to my role/contract.

dizzyblonde82

Perhaps it would help if I gave a bit more info regarding my job - I work for my local Primary Care Trust and am a secretary, I am based on the ground floor with fire exit/toilets about 20 steps away (this isn't on purpose just happens to be where my team were based). I am currently working and my knee condition is not affecting my ability to do my job at present, I am awaiting further intensive physiotherapy but there is some debate between the hospital/pct on who will pay for my treatment due to me living in a different PCT area than the hospital I had surgery is in.

I just wanted some different view points and advise on what people thought was reasonable for my employer to suggest. I will update this once I have my meeting with my employer.

AnonymousForObviousReason

Good luck, my opinion is that it's not reasonable for your employer to suggest this. Also they haven't carried out the proper processes to reach this conclusion in any case.