Employer requesting "access to medical reports"

NoNoDrama

Bad advise given here. They request it so they can get medical dirt on you and make an argument you are not well enough to work for the company due to your 'illness'. If you are going Long Term Sick they want rid, they want to see your history and will use it against you. They give you a P45 and argue you are not capable or healthy enough to stay in the role.

This is the latest trick by the corporates, do not give them anything. Problem is though (like my company) some threaten to withhold your pay (assuming you are getting full sick pay) if you don't give them access to your records so they have you by the balls whichever way you look at it.

They are not requesting it because they are concerned about your wealthfare.

Also if you signed a contract asking to disclose a pre-existing medical condition and ermm, you didn't, giving them access to your medical records would be a very bad move.

Takeaway_Addict

NoNoDrama wrote: »

Bad advise given here. They request it so they can get medical dirt on you and make an argument you are not well enough to work for the company due to your 'illness'. If you are going Long Term Sick they want rid, they want to see your history and will use it against you. They give you a P45 and argue you are not capable or healthy enough to stay in the role.

This is the latest trick by the corporates, do not give them anything. Problem is though (like my company) some threaten to withhold your pay (assuming you are getting full sick pay) if you don't give them access to your records so they have you by the balls whichever way you look at it.

They are not requesting it because they are concerned about your wealthfare.

Also if you signed a contract asking to disclose a pre-existing medical condition and ermm, you didn't, giving them access to your medical records would be a very bad move.

This, on the whole is bad advice. If you don't cooperate in someway it makes it alot easier for employers to justify their dismissal as they can prove they tried to help but you, the employee made life difficult

NoNoDrama

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

This, on the whole is bad advice. If you don't cooperate in someway it makes it alot easier for employers to justify their dismissal as they can prove they tried to help but you, the employee made life difficult

I agree they can use this angle as well. I was trying to point out they will only use your medical history against you, and not to help you. My point remains however if you've not disclosed an illness on your initial contract and then it shows up on your medical report! It's bad news.

These companies don't want anybody with stress/depression or anybody going off with stress/depression.

They are ruthless....but it's the government who picks up the benefits bill not sure what their stance is on companies sacking people with mental health problems.

Takeaway_Addict

NoNoDrama wrote: »

I agree they can use this angle as well. I was trying to point out they will only use your medical history against you, and not to help you. My point remains however if you've not disclosed an illness on your initial contract and then it shows up on your medical report! It's bad news.

These companies don't want anybody with stress/depression or anybody going off with stress/depression.

They are ruthless....but it's the government who picks up the benefits bill not sure what their stance is on companies sacking people with mental health problems.

It is but then thats because you lied originally, if you haven't lied and become ill then allowing access can and does help some employers to make reasonable adjustments.

Depending on how long you have been ill then of course you can be dismissed. You surely can't expect an employer to allow someone on perminant sick?

ValHaller

NoNoDrama wrote: »

These companies don't want anybody with stress/depression or anybody going off with stress/depression.

Of course they do. In every modern enterprise managers are taking bets on who will go off sick with stress and depression first. They would even outsource running the book to online bookies, but for the fact they cannot work out a way of stopping employees placing bets on themselves. That is despite the fact that the managers have inside knowledge and influence over the things they are betting on.

NoNoDrama

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

Depending on how long you have been ill then of course you can be dismissed. You surely can't expect an employer to allow someone on perminant sick?

Nope. But the process of being sick>dismissal is becoming worryingly quick and ruthless. Bouts of depression can last for months for example, you can find yourself dismissed before you are ready to come back. I understand from a pay point of view employers will choose to cap and pay SSP after so long (or from the outset). This making reasonable adjustments or asking for access to your medical records malarky are just ways to speed up the employee's exit. They are loopholes to get you back into work or shove you out the door without facing an unfair dismissal claim.

Takeaway_Addict

what in your mind is a reasonable amount of time before action is taken from the employer to look at the situation to either help or dismiss?

NoNoDrama

At least:-

3 months before intervention. 6-12 months before considered dismissal.

Employee's have their own doctor, they don't need an occupational one who only has the companies intentions at heart intervening.

Takeaway_Addict

NoNoDrama wrote: »

At least:-

3 months before intervention. 6-12 months before considered dismissal.

Employee's have their own doctor, they don't need an occupational one who only has the companies intentions at heart intervening.

I was gonna put mine first but waited but we're not far off. I would wait 4 months before enquiring and look to dismiss if we were unable to do anything from 6-9 months depending on circumstances.

ValHaller

NoNoDrama wrote: »

Employee's have their own doctor, they don't need an occupational one who only has the companies intentions at heart intervening.

That is why, if you have any sense, when your employer asks for a report from your own doctor, you go to the company doctor instead. That way your doctor stays yours, his notes stay with him and he is not compromised by the employer's money