Question about medical issue and work

nodiscount

marybelle01 wrote: »

You are still totally ignoring the fact that the employer has given extra loo breaks. There is nothing that says these extra breaks have to be paid. Reasonable adjustments of working time do not have to be paid. The OP wanted extra loo breaks, they have got them.

It's not as simple as that. Like I said, the OP needs more in-depth advice.

marybelle01

nodiscount wrote: »

It's not as simple as that. Like I said, the OP needs more in-depth advice.

Honestly, it is that simple and keep repeating that it isn't doesn't make it more complicated! Whether the OP has a disability or not is not the relevant point - the employer has been told that they need more breaks to go to the loo and the employer has responded by agreeing and giving more breaks. Adjustment done.


Nobody, disabled or not, has a right to paid breaks. That is the law. And that bit is simple.

Morglin

Aren't toilet breaks usually paid? I have never heard of an employee losing payment for time in the loo.

I think, as advised, the OP needs to get professional advice, as I have never heard of an issue with how many times a day someone needs the loo, especially if they have a medical condition.

Disability rights, in the workplace, covers a lot of issues, and this may well be one of them.

Lin

C_Mababejive

How often and how long does the manager go to the toilet on average? What is applicable/acceptable for him should be the same for the shopfloor workers. They are not animals and shouldnt be treated as such. What a shameful bullying manager..

marybelle01

Morglin wrote: »

Aren't toilet breaks usually paid? I have never heard of an employee losing payment for time in the loo.

I think, as advised, the OP needs to get professional advice, as I have never heard of an issue with how many times a day someone needs the loo, especially if they have a medical condition.

Disability rights, in the workplace, covers a lot of issues, and this may well be one of them.

Lin

I feel like I am being the bad guy here when I actually don't agree with the employer! But the bottom line is that there is no right to toilet breaks and I am not getting into any more arguments about whether that is fair or not, because it's just a fact. If the employer says toilet breaks are "your breaks", that is what they say. Yes, it's bloody unreasonable but it isn't illegal. The OP said they needed more toilet breaks because of their condition. The employer provided them. But they do not have to provide them paid.


What everyone is getting confused about is that there is nothing at all unreasonable about needing more breaks - for whatever the hell you need them for! But nobody has a right to be paid for them.


Put it the other way around and it makes sense. I pay you for 9 hours work every day. You get 50 minutes (or whatever) breaks during the day, unpaid. What is fair about someone getting an extra 30 minutes breaks (so doing less work) and paid for that? Discrimination laws (assuming there is a disability even, which we don't know) are to level the playing field, not give you better conditions. You take extra breaks, you work them back. Just like a phased return doesn't mean you get paid full pay for working half a week.

nodiscount

marybelle01 wrote: »

I feel like I am being the bad guy here when I actually don't agree with the employer! But the bottom line is that there is no right to toilet breaks and I am not getting into any more arguments about whether that is fair or not, because it's just a fact. If the employer says toilet breaks are "your breaks", that is what they say. Yes, it's bloody unreasonable but it isn't illegal. The OP said they needed more toilet breaks because of their condition. The employer provided them. But they do not have to provide them paid.


What everyone is getting confused about is that there is nothing at all unreasonable about needing more breaks - for whatever the hell you need them for! But nobody has a right to be paid for them.


Put it the other way around and it makes sense. I pay you for 9 hours work every day. You get 50 minutes (or whatever) breaks during the day, unpaid. What is fair about someone getting an extra 30 minutes breaks (so doing less work) and paid for that? Discrimination laws (assuming there is a disability even, which we don't know) are to level the playing field, not give you better conditions. You take extra breaks, you work them back. Just like a phased return doesn't mean you get paid full pay for working half a week.

Well it seems you disagree with all the case law on disability issues and read the equality act in a black and white fashion.
What do you say about case law that says an employer should pay for therapy for a depressed employee? About case law that says some disability related absence should be disregarded etc?
I don't know if the op is covered by the law but a simplistic viewpoint like yours is not helpful.
If the employer is a one man band then of course, providing extra breaks will not be possible or 'reasonable' in that circumstance but if its a large firm then why can't they be more supportive? Some people take longer in the toilet but then some people take longer to do other things, like gassing away to colleagues or having fruitless meetings.
We are all different and have strengths and weaknesses. We are not robots for employers to control.

Yorkie1

marybelle01 wrote: »

I feel like I am being the bad guy here when I actually don't agree with the employer! But the bottom line is that there is no right to toilet breaks and I am not getting into any more arguments about whether that is fair or not, because it's just a fact. If the employer says toilet breaks are "your breaks", that is what they say. Yes, it's bloody unreasonable but it isn't illegal. The OP said they needed more toilet breaks because of their condition. The employer provided them. But they do not have to provide them paid.


What everyone is getting confused about is that there is nothing at all unreasonable about needing more breaks - for whatever the hell you need them for! But nobody has a right to be paid for them.


Put it the other way around and it makes sense. I pay you for 9 hours work every day. You get 50 minutes (or whatever) breaks during the day, unpaid. What is fair about someone getting an extra 30 minutes breaks (so doing less work) and paid for that? Discrimination laws (assuming there is a disability even, which we don't know) are to level the playing field, not give you better conditions. You take extra breaks, you work them back. Just like a phased return doesn't mean you get paid full pay for working half a week.

OP isn't (as far as I can tell from this thread) taking 30 minutes' worth of extra/unpaid breaks though.

So the employer is essentially docking them pay by making them work for longer than the unpaid breaks.

marybelle01

Yorkie1 wrote: »

OP isn't (as far as I can tell from this thread) taking 30 minutes' worth of extra/unpaid breaks though.

So the employer is essentially docking them pay by making them work for longer than the unpaid breaks.

The Op is entitled to take the breaks. So take them.

But beyond that, I'm out. I don't agree with the employer. But it seems that everyone thinks I am the employer.

I suggest that the Op tell the employer where to stick their breaks, and pay the £1200 (before lawyers fees, if they need one) for a tribunal. Which seems to be what everyone else thinks is the right thing to do. I hope it's that simple. But I doubt it.

Annisele

Morglin wrote: »

Aren't toilet breaks usually paid? I have never heard of an employee losing payment for time in the loo.

Sensible firms who don't want to annoy their staff will pay for toilet breaks, yes.

But I think marybelle is right. She's not arguing that this employer is sensible, or fair (and she's made pretty clear she thinks the employer is a bit of an idiot).

You don't win employment tribunals because your employer is an idiot; you win them because the employer has done something they're not allowed to do.

OP - does somebody have to come and cover you when you move away from where you work? (I'm thinking of a reception desk where somebody has to physically come and sit in your seat while you're away, rather than a general office worker who can pretty much come and go when they need to).

If so, would it be possible for you to do different work where the breaks issue didn't matter so much?

Morglin

I must be getting old - I have worked for a lot of firms over the last 40+ years, many of them long before current rights were bought in, and I have never, ever heard of employers not paying for toilet breaks - if someone needs to go the loo, they go, and it should be as simple as that.

If some employers are behaving like this now, then they cannot wonder if their workers treat them with scorn and a lack of loyalty.

I'm sometimes happy my days in the workplace are over.

Lin :wall: