Disability discrimination linked to Cancer help!!!

ILW

bluenoseam wrote: »

The bursar is spot on, they can get rid of you if making adjustments to your job are not reasonable! As for discrimination, no, I'm sorry but you COULD have checked your email from your location and seen these other jobs being advertised, you just chose not to check your email. They advertised the posts which is all they had to do.

Seems a fair point, unless your disability stopped you from looking at emails.

Uncertain

bluenoseam wrote: »

The bursar is spot on, they can get rid of you if making adjustments to your job are not reasonable! As for discrimination, no, I'm sorry but you COULD have checked your email from your location and seen these other jobs being advertised, you just chose not to check your email. They advertised the posts which is all they had to do.

If the part I've highlighted is correct them fair enough.

However I do not agree that somebody who is off sick should be expected to check their work email. In fact some firms would forbid it.

If the firm is obliged to advise them of something then they should, preferably, write to their home address. Depending on the circumstances it may or may not be appropriate to phone or maybe send an email to a private address if that has been previously agreed.

Sambucus_Nigra

skintandscared wrote: »

I would agree with this if the reason for the long term absence was stress or a mental health issue. But I don't believe that accessing work emails worsens the symptoms of cancer...

In that case, why don't people with cancer work from home?

Are you qualified to make a statement like this?

ILW

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

In that case, why don't people with cancer work from home?

Are you qualified to make a statement like this?

Many do, but in OPs case he is only at home due to not being able to work in a particular environment involving wood dust. Nothing to about emails.

Uncertain

ILW wrote: »

Many do, but in OPs case he is only at home due to not being able to work in a particular environment involving wood dust. Nothing to about emails.

That is still no reason for the school to assume that he will check his work emails unless this has been agreed. At the very least the email should have asked for confirmation of receipt so that they could use some other method if this was not forthcoming.

As stated, unless the school were obliged to give him this information then it is largely irrelevant.

custardy

Uncertain wrote: »

That is still no reason for the school to assume that he will check his work emails unless this has been agreed. At the very least the email should have asked for confirmation of receipt so that they could use some other method if this was not forthcoming.

As stated, unless the school were obliged to give him this information then it is largely irrelevant.

confirmation of receipt is an opt in service
if the recipient clicks no,then there is no note that it has been read
going down that route
you would then need to follow up in writing,with a signed for service to check for delivery

Uncertain

custardy wrote: »

confirmation of receipt is an opt in service
if the recipient clicks no,then there is no note that it has been read
going down that route
you would then need to follow up in writing,with a signed for service to check for delivery

Yes I know. I was really meaning a reply.

A signed for service is maybe a bit OTT here. For most civil legal purposes proof of posting is sufficient. The normal presumption is that mail is delivered. 99.9% + is and that is vastly more than the balance of probability needed in a civil case.

Sambucus_Nigra

ILW wrote: »

Many do, but in OPs case he is only at home due to not being able to work in a particular environment involving wood dust. Nothing to about emails.

If someone is signed off sick, then it doesn't matter whether ILW thinks they should check their emails, if the OP wasn't spoken to about emails, and wasn't told that alternative positions would be emailed out only - then they are failing in their duty of care.

Takeaway_Addict

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

If someone is signed off sick, then it doesn't matter whether ILW thinks they should check their emails, if the OP wasn't spoken to about emails, and wasn't told that alternative positions would be emailed out only - then they are failing in their duty of care.

Their argument they would give whether rightly or wrongly is that the email system is accessible from work and jobs are always advertised in this manner (I am presuming they are...) and that it would be reasonable to expect employees to check this.

Sambucus_Nigra

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

Their argument they would give whether rightly or wrongly is that the email system is accessible from work and jobs are always advertised in this manner (I am presuming they are...) and that it would be reasonable to expect employees to check this.

My argument would be that I'm not at work so why would I access work emails?