At my wits end - Work problems

dark_lady

Im really sorry i can be of no help to you but its shocking the way he has been treated and for some reason i do seem to vaguely remember the odd thread or two on here about ASDA problems in the past.

Savvy_Sue

Emmzi wrote: »

IMHO it's stupid not letting him wear his own toetecs - just bloody minded! It does seem very unreasonable to me.

Probably easier for them to insist that all boots are supplied by Asda than to have to inspect every pair of 'private' boots to ensure that they are indeed 'fit for purpose' and compliant with BS standards or kite marks or whatever it is these days.

SarEl

This seems to be a rather sad version of a comedy of errors, with potentially tragic outcomes. We need to do some separating out of issues.

OP - your OH is in the wrong about the fit note! So this isn't a help. It isn't the case that they don't understand a simple fit note - it is that you have misunderstood it! If you are provided with a fit note then it is your responsibility to turn up to work, and the employer then either needs to provide the adjustments required to comply with it's terms or to send you home. At the very least he should have contacted the employer when he got it and asked them to clarify whether they could accommodate it or not and what they wanted him to do. You aren't allowed to make an assumption that they cannot modify the duties and so not turn up.

In relation to the boots, then you have had a lot of very good advice here. Just to add that the employer should, immediately they knew that the complaint was about the suitability of the equipment they provided, have asked for an occupational health assessment - they should have been able to quickly ascertain what they issue was and make recommendatioons to correct the problem. But the real problem here is that your OH has less than 12 months employment and unless the GMB has much more power with ASDA than I think that they do, it was somewhat irresponsible of the rep to say that it would be ok and the disciplinary would come to nothing, because there is no reason why that statement should be true. In this situation the employer has all the power, and can very easily dismiss - they do not have to justify that decision or be "fair" in the way they go about it.

dickydonkin

Emmzi wrote: »

well, the date helps, and that is isn't far off helps.

IMHO it's stupid not letting him wear his own toetecs - just bloody minded! It does seem very unreasonable to me.

Your problem is that he has minimal employment protection during his probationary period/ first year of employment. It's going to be down to how reasonable the boss hearing the case is.

In respect of the first issue regarding the boots, the employer has fulfilled his obligation in respect of the provision of the footwear.

PPE is a last resort in avoiding injury as other control measures should ideally be in place such as eliminating the hazard.

Obviously in a warehouse, fork trucks will be evident and it seems reasonable to make such footwear a mandatory requirement.

However, one of the reasons why PPE is the last resort in controlling risks has been highlighted in this thread.

It can be uncomfortable.

I can however, understand the reasoning why the employer initially refused the request for different boots as I suspect the boots supplied by the company have been assessed and deemed suitable for the risks the OP's OH will come into contact with during the course of his work.

Bringing in your own PPE may not be suitable and sufficiently protect so I can understand the companies stance - although they did not seem to react to the concerns in a sympathetic and prompt manner.

And there the problem lies - they should have done. Waiting for a doctors confirmation of injury before attempting to remedy the situation is barmy.

Wearing unsuitable PPE can potentially increase a risk as the operator may not be fully mobile, pain may cause a distraction and other problems could arise - including injury caused by the equipment that is supposed to protect them!

There are so many different kinds of safety footwear nowadays and the company should have a selection for staff to change should they encounter problems with standard issue.

Unfortunately, I suspect there is an element of rigid procedure going on here due to the litigious society we now live in - unfortunately, it seems the procrastination by the employer has exacerbated the problem!

katielouisemc

SarEl wrote: »

This seems to be a rather sad version of a comedy of errors, with potentially tragic outcomes. We need to do some separating out of issues.

OP - your OH is in the wrong about the fit note! So this isn't a help. It isn't the case that they don't understand a simple fit note - it is that you have misunderstood it! If you are provided with a fit note then it is your responsibility to turn up to work, and the employer then either needs to provide the adjustments required to comply with it's terms or to send you home. At the very least he should have contacted the employer when he got it and asked them to clarify whether they could accommodate it or not and what they wanted him to do. You aren't allowed to make an assumption that they cannot modify the duties and so not turn up.

Prior to needing a sick note he'd already been in to see them and was told there was nowhere else they could put him so he wasn't on his feet so he hadn't assumed he couldn't go in, they'd already told him.

A further update is that they have spoken to the podiatrist and he told the guy conducting the investigation that he made an error and it was 6 weeks instead of 6 months. That should have been the end of it but the guy turned around and told him, and this is exactly how it was said 'we think you're lying' and suspended him. So the hearing is next week and I'm pretty sure they're going to dismiss him, despite having no proof. We're going to obtain his medical records ourselves and hopefully they'll accept that they have no proof to back up their claim that he's lying but I'm not holding out much hope.

I think it's an absolute disgrace but like you say.. he's got little protection being in his first year of employment. Can't wait for this mess to be over.

welshmoneylover

dark_lady wrote: »

Im really sorry i can be of no help to you but its shocking the way he has been treated and for some reason i do seem to vaguely remember the odd thread or two on here about ASDA problems in the past.

https://www.stopasdabullying.co.uk