Phased return to work

pickpocketlocket

Jojo_the_Tightfisted wrote: »

Of course, there is the danger that if she is refused, that she then relapses and needs a further six months off on full pay.

In which case they would probably/ hopefully end up with no job, having been dismissed on the grounds of capability.

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

Lizzybop wrote: »

Well thank you all for your comments.

Just to clear up a few points.

I do not work with this person. I have never met this person. The person is not female, but the situation is real. So thank you for the comment about bitterness on my part - made me smile (sorry I'm not good at quoting parts of other posts!)

My personal view is that they are taking the pi$$.

They originally went off sick when they asked for a cut in their working hours and it was considered but turned down. They are not close to retirement age. They don't have any children or sick or elderly relatives to look after, they want to have every friday off.

It is feared, by the person I know who is connected with the situation, that they will make it back to 4 days per week and claim they can't do any more.

They are paid a good wage (double national average ish) and live very close to the office. Alternative employment on such a good salary, so close to home isn't available, they would have to travel to nearest large city. So they want to hold on to what they have.

To make clear. They have been paid full salary all throughout their period of sickness. Which co-incided nicely with the tour-de-France & Olympics. They are a cycling fan!

They are still being paid full salary throughout their phased return to work, and expect to be back to full time by the end of the year.

They have not been expected to use any of their holiday entitlement for any of the time off they have had so far.

Has anyone changed their view?????????

No.

If the original request to cut hours was due to illness they had no need to share with random internet people, then refusal may have been the final straw, where it was realised that there would be no sympathy or understanding from HR. So the GP said 'You need time off' and signed him off as a result.

Upon having such a period of sickness, they could have realised that they cannot manage a full week anymore but want to keep their job because it's not their fault they've been ill.

The level of their salary is irrelevant. They've obviously earned it, it's not as if high salaries are paid for the fun of it.

I've been ill during two consecutive summer holiday periods and one Christmas. I did not choose to be ill at those times and, quite frankly, if someone had volunteered to have the serious illnesses for me, I would have been more than happy to have them suffering at home whilst I went to work.



What you are saying sounds - to the impartial observer - to be exactly why there was a Disability Discrimination (succeeded by the Equality) Act. To protect people from those with opinions like yours.

How do you know what illness he has had? It could be bipolar (which can be fatal), it could be inflammatory arthritis, it could be fibromyalgia, it could be ANYTHING - and if you are aware of the diagnosis, seeing as you don't know him and have never met him, the person who told you should be fired immediately for breaching confidentiality.

And they should be ashamed of themselves.

tea_lover

Lizzybop wrote: »

Has anyone changed their view?????????

No. Because I'm not that person's dr, and neither are you. No one else knows all the details of why this person has been off, and why they are on a phased return.

Their salary has nothing to do with their health.

If anything I'm even more convinced that bitter was the right choice of word.

Bambam

I kind of understand where Lizzybop is coming from. If the job requires someone to work 5 days and this person only wants to work 4 days, then who is going to 'take up the slack?' The company obviously think it cannot be done in 5 days or they would have agreed to the reduction in hours. A 5 day-a-week job being reduced to 4 days to accommodate someone is obviously going to have a knock-on effect to other employees, which IS unfair

Bambam

Jojo_the_Tightfisted wrote: »

How do you know what illness he has had? It could be bipolar (which can be fatal), it could be inflammatory arthritis, it could be fibromyalgia, it could be ANYTHING - and if you are aware of the diagnosis, seeing as you don't know him and have never met him, the person who told you should be fired immediately for breaching confidentiality.

...and which just happened to conveniently occur after his request to work a 4 day week was rejected!

floss2

Bambam wrote: »

...and which just happened to conveniently occur after his request to work a 4 day week was rejected!

That rejection could have been a trigger to something that has been managed for some time but increased pressure / workload may have caused it to become unmanageable - 4-day weeks may mean he can manage until retirement.

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

Bambam wrote: »

...and which just happened to conveniently occur after his request to work a 4 day week was rejected!

So it's impossible that he requested the cut in working hours purely BECAUSE he already had this illness and was trying to manage it without taking an extended period of time off work?


I know I was unwell before I was forced to take an extended period off - perhaps, had my boss allowed me to reduce my hours instead of informing me she had decided that not was the answer to my request no, I had to increase them, and not gone ballistic at the idea of my attending a few hospital appointments, I wouldn't have ended up with the most severe flare of RA I have ever experienced.

Moreover, had I been able to shorten the working week by a day, I would have had the best part of 4 days with which to take immunosuppressant medication and get over the worst of the side effects by the time Monday morning came round again. So I might have been able to stay in employment and they wouldn't have had to pay an agency three times my salary for a succession of replacements, none of which worked as long as the reduced hours I had requested.

Bambam

floss2 wrote: »

That rejection could have been a trigger to something that has been managed for some time but increased pressure / workload may have caused it to become unmanageable - 4-day weeks may mean he can manage until retirement.

I think it would be safe to assume that if he has a recurring or unmanageable illness his employer would know about it and would have looked favourably upon his request to reduce his hours. Or it just might be that, as someone has already said, he's throwing his toys out of the pram because he hasn't got what he wanted.

tea_lover

Bambam wrote: »

I think it would be safe to assume that if he has a recurring or unmanageable illness his employer would know about it and would have looked favourably upon his request to reduce his hours.

Hardly! As is shown by this thread, not all employers work fairly, or even legally, in this area.

euronorris

Bambam wrote: »

I think it would be safe to assume that if he has a recurring or unmanageable illness his employer would know about it and would have looked favourably upon his request to reduce his hours. Or it just might be that, as someone has already said, he's throwing his toys out of the pram because he hasn't got what he wanted.

Why on earth would you make this assumption?

IME, there are plenty of uncooperative employers around. Just because the law says they should act a certain way, doesn't mean they will.

I'm not saying that this person is genuine, or not. I don't know. You don't know, and neither does the OP. So it's pointless speculating.

Tealover was right first time though - the OP is bitter. And, I'm willing to bet, works with him (despite what he/she may say to the contrary).