work rights and reducing hours..

cowiejaffacake

hi all,

im new and need advice...


i took on a new job in october 2011 after not working properly for 2 years.

i went off sick on the 14th december so after less than 2 months of being there and have been off for 3 weeks so far but due to go back in 4 days..

however the hours are mon-fri 9-5/8-4/ 10-6 and i feel like ive taken on too much.

i have a chronic lung condition and am prone to infections etc.. i receive dla higher rate mobility.

what can i do about reducing my days/hours and what leg have i got to stand on?

it is a permanent role.


ive taken on too much

tomjonesrules

Assuming you qualify as 'disabled', the employer is obliged to consider making reasonable adjustments to your role. What is reasonable will depend on several factors - cost implications, burden on other staff, setting a precedent etc. The first step is to speak to your employer and tell them you are struggling, see what they suggest.

Richie-from-the-Boro

cowiejaffacake wrote: »

hi all,

im new and need advice...


I took on a new job in October 2011 after not working properly for 2 years.

I went off sick on the 14th December so after less than 2 months of being there and have been off for 3 weeks so far but due to go back in 4 days..

However the hours are mon-fri 9-5/8-4/ 10-6 and i feel like ive taken on too much.

i have a chronic lung condition and am prone to infections etc.. i receive DLA higher rate mobility.

what can i do about reducing my days/hours and what leg have i got to stand on?

it is a permanent role.


ive taken on too much

That would depend on two things :

What you told your employer at interview, for example if s/he was made aware before offering you a CofE that your condition was XYZ, and ;

How benevolent and accommodating your employer is to a disabled employee.

If your question is, is the employer legally obliged to reduce your hours then the answer is no. You have not yet spent a qualifying period of time to have full protection.

However be honest and ask the question, and do so at the earliest opportunity, your employer will appreciate the fact that you were up front with the truth that you 'took too much on'. The fact of the matter is your ticket~will~be~marked already because your employer has already spent double for every hour you worked and possible treble by time he takes on extra cover for your absence, better for you to make the first move and try to get him / her on side.

Brassedoff

As Richie said, it depends on what you told them. It is OK anyone rolling out the law and making reasonable adjustments, but if it is a small firm they will not be able to afford it.

I might be able to make some suggestions if you could (without naming them) tell us if they are a large/national/small company, is the role you do specialist and how did you get the job, such as Agency, etc. How many hoops you went through to get it. You see, getting the right person quite often is such a pain, many employers will make an accommodation rather than go through it all again.

As a former employer of many, you'd be surprised how many do or will take these things into account, but to be honest, you knew the hours before starting and if you had not already told them I would not be surprised to find you fail your probationary period on the basis of time off already.

Sorry if that is not what you want to hear, but most employers will more than likely finish you when you for back should you have any more time off.

tomjonesrules

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

That would depend on two things :

What you told your employer at interview, for example if s/he was made aware before offering you a CofE that your condition was XYZ, and ;

How benevolent and accommodating your employer is to a disabled employee.

If your question is, is the employer legally obliged to reduce your hours then the answer is no. You have not yet spent a qualifying period of time to have full protection.

To clarify the above errors - it is irrelevant whether the OP declared their condition before employment. The duty to make RAs exists as soon as the employer is reasonably aware that the employee is disabled.

There is no qualifying period before the duty to make RAs applies.

Brassedoff

tomjonesrules wrote: »

To clarify the above errors - it is irrelevant whether the OP declared their condition before employment. The duty to make RAs exists as soon as the employer is reasonably aware that the employee is disabled.

There is no qualifying period before the duty to make RAs applies.

OK, now go to the real world.

Dear Mr/Mrs cowiejaffacake,

Further to your trial period with this company, I am sorry to inform you that you have failed your probationary period with the company, blah, blah, blah.

A good company will give some indicators, such as due to time off failed to reach the expected performance level. As I said, they need to talk to them. If I were hit by a probationary employee who has just returned from four weeks off inside their tenth week of a new job with "reasonable adjustments", their time would be short.

Unfortunately the OP is in a no win situation. As I said in my first reply, we need more details. Big or small firm (affordability) Pre-disclosure of condition (to ensure nothing was hidden and the employer is left feeling cheated), the type of job and recruitment process (how difficult will it be for the employer to recruit a replacement), How specialist is the job (again, the employer might decide they have gone far enough down the road with the OP, it is worth sticking with them).

It's all right quoting New Liebours utopian employment law, but the ways and means act makes the OP easy to get rid of.

tomjonesrules

Brassedoff wrote: »

OK, now go to the real world.

Dear Mr/Mrs cowiejaffacake,

Further to your trial period with this company, I am sorry to inform you that you have failed your probationary period with the company, blah, blah, blah.

A good company will give some indicators, such as due to time off failed to reach the expected performance level. As I said, they need to talk to them. If I were hit by a probationary employee who has just returned from four weeks off inside their tenth week of a new job with "reasonable adjustments", their time would be short.

Unfortunately the OP is in a no win situation. As I said in my first reply, we need more details. Big or small firm (affordability) Pre-disclosure of condition (to ensure nothing was hidden and the employer is left feeling cheated), the type of job and recruitment process (how difficult will it be for the employer to recruit a replacement), How specialist is the job (again, the employer might decide they have gone far enough down the road with the OP, it is worth sticking with them).

It's all right quoting New Liebours utopian employment law, but the ways and means act makes the OP easy to get rid of.

I completely agree with you, far easier to dismiss than make RAs. However, that does not take away from the fact that Richie's information was wrong, and hence needed to be corrected.

Also worthy of note that the duty to make RAs was brought in by the Conservatives, not Labour!

Brassedoff

tomjonesrules wrote: »

Also worthy of note that the duty to make RAs was brought in by the Conservatives, not Labour!

Was it? That does surprise me and shows they are not all bad in this instance then. :rotfl:

Richie-from-the-Boro

tomjonesrules wrote: »

I completely agree with you, far easier to dismiss than make RAs. However, that does not take away from the fact that Richie's information was wrong, and hence needed to be corrected.

Also worthy of note that the duty to make RAs was brought in by the Conservatives, not Labour!

"" fact that Richie's information was wrong, and hence needed to be corrected.""

- I have no intention of pursuing this my friend
- he is not an employee at that stage
- and has no [ enabler = Employment Protection] protection
- we will have to disagree and await the outcome
- I hope the O/P's employer is understanding or runs a Social Accounting Policy

Even if the O/P had disclosed and had not already broken the ' trust and confidence rule' and you were correct in your assumption. The employer only has to make reasonable adjustments which are primarily concerned with enabling a disabled person to remain in work or to return to work. There is no obligation or requirement reasonable or otherwise to offer light duties or educed hours as a form of rehabilitation.

Phased RTW does come under the rules of reasonable adjustment, that is where the work involved is productive work - once again rehabilitation work is not required as a reasonable adjustment.

Either way he told them his history at interview, and is protected in law, or did not disclose in which case terminating his employment can begin without recourse to the law. From that point providing the employer follows a fair and reasonable process to bring the employment to an end, and that the dismissal is 'fair' there can be no substantial claim against the employer.

tomjonesrules

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

"" fact that Richie's information was wrong, and hence needed to be corrected.""

- I have no intention of pursuing this my friend
- he is not an employee at that stage
- and has no [ enabler = Employment Protection] protection
- we will have to disagree and await the outcome
- I hope the O/P's employer is understanding or runs a Social Accounting Policy

Either way he told them his history at interview, and is protected in law, or did not disclose in which case terminating his employment can begin without recourse to the law.

You need to read up on the duty Richie - the duty applies even before the contractual employment relationship begins, as soon the employer becomes aware that there is an interested party. Both statute and case law are very clear on this point, and if that is too much for you, the Employment Code is a succinct guide to the legislation. Unless of course you can demonstrate otherwise?

With regard to knowledge and dismissal, if the employer was to instigate action after the OP had advised of their condition they would be obliged to take this into account and adjust accordingly.

cowiejaffacake

I work for axa which are a company that support disability apparently??! They have been awarded the positive about am disabled people award...