Going sick while in work

joeuk82

Hi

Wondering if someone could help me.

I work for a local council (please don't hate me). I have IBS which has a habit of starting at really annoying moments. (doctor is working on getting the correct tablets)

Although I try and avoid it. I sometimes have to leave work sick.
This is due to working away from the depot and no easy access to toilets.

The previous times I've had to go home, my supervisor has got the van driver to take me back to the depot so I can get me car.

On monday, I had to leave due to my IBS and the driver was told "He's gone sick there. That's where you leave him"
I was miles from the depot and it would have been a very long and awkward walk/run back.

Is there a law on the what an employer has to do. Or is it down to them to decide?


Thanks for the time

Joe

agrinnall

Doubt if the employer has any requirement to return you to the depot before the end of your work period. Why can't you get a taxi if it's too far to walk?

topdaddy_2

They drive you out. They drive you in. Simple as that.

tomtontom

topdaddy wrote: »

They drive you out. They drive you in. Simple as that.

At the same time as every one else. Anything beyond that is down to the specifics of the situation - is the site otherwise inaccessible, how far from base/ home etc are you?

OP, how often do you have this problem? Is it possible to transfer to a more suitable/ non field based role?

topdaddy_2

tomtontom wrote: »

At the same time as every one else. Anything beyond that is down to the specifics of the situation - is the site otherwise inaccessible, how far from base/ home etc are

Not a chance. If I gotta go then thats that.

tomtontom

topdaddy wrote: »

Not a chance. If I gotta go then thats that.

Then you need to make arrangements accordingly. It may (depending on the circumstances) be suitable for the employer to get the worker back to base (or home) but it is not reasonable to disrupt the work of others to accommodate this.

BobQ

There is a legal requirement to provide transport home to someone injured at work. While a reasonable employer might extend this to sickness at work it is probably not a legal duty.

There is an argument that if you are unwell they have a duty of care to see that you are able to return home and I am surprised that a local authority takes such an approach. What does your employers staff handbook say about it?

But this might help, some references to your situation

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg293.pdf

topdaddy_2

tomtontom wrote: »

Then you need to make arrangements accordingly. It may (depending on the circumstances) be suitable for the employer to get the worker back to base (or home) but it is not reasonable to disrupt the work of others to accommodate this.

Absolutly not. Nothing, nothing at all they are doing is more important than the welfare of an employee.

the_donchichio

joeuk82 wrote: »

Hi

Wondering if someone could help me.

I work for a local council (please don't hate me). I have IBS which has a habit of starting at really annoying moments. (doctor is working on getting the correct tablets)

Although I try and avoid it. I sometimes have to leave work sick.
This is due to working away from the depot and no easy access to toilets.

The previous times I've had to go home, my supervisor has got the van driver to take me back to the depot so I can get me car.

On monday, I had to leave due to my IBS and the driver was told "He's gone sick there. That's where you leave him"
I was miles from the depot and it would have been a very long and awkward walk/run back.

Is there a law on the what an employer has to do. Or is it down to them to decide?


Thanks for the time

Joe

Tbh, it's harsh if you get dropped off miles from the depot particularly with the "sick there, drop off there rule"...& I would classify it as barbaric ans brutal considering your condition...I would take it up with the union or very least join one...is there anyway you can park your car near the depot? don't know about the legal stand point but surely it can't be morally correct

BobQ

the_donchichio wrote: »

Tbh, it's harsh if you get dropped off miles from the depot particularly with the "sick there, drop off there rule"...& I would classify it as barbaric ans brutal considering your condition...I would take it up with the union or very least join one...is there anyway you can park your car near the depot? don't know about the legal stand point but surely it can't be morally correct

I am quite surprised that a local authority takes this stance which is why you should read your staff handbook. It may be that your boss is irritated by it happening more than once and it making his own rules up to make a point. If so HR will be able to tell you this. Some good employers would pay for a taxi to take you home.

A union is unlikely to help you deal with a problem that began before you joined.

Another_not_new_user

topdaddy wrote: »

They drive you out. They drive you in. Simple as that.

topdaddy wrote: »

Absolutly not. Nothing, nothing at all they are doing is more important than the welfare of an employee.

What are the legal references for these blanket statements? Because there is no law that says "they drive you out, they drive you in". Simple as that. And since we know nothing at all about the OP's job or the employers priorities, it is impossible to say that nothing is more important than someone who has had an attack of IBS- does that mean that if a child's safety is jeopardised then that will be ok as long as the employee is looked after? This is a council - there are actually a lot of things they do which may be more important than dropping everything to get an employee to their home base, when there are taxis and other forms of transport. There simply isn't enough information provided to make such blindingly definitive statements, even assuming that the IBS qualifies as a disability (which we do not know) which is the ONLY circumstances in which an employer should consider reasonable adjustments - not that we would know on this information whether it was reasonable or not.


Because like it or not, there are other interpretations that may come from this scenario. OP is unable to fulfil the conditions of their contract because they are required to travel as part of their job, and their condition precludes this so they are not capable of fulfilling their role - end result, redeployment (and this may not be possible on equivalent terms) and if not possible, dismissal. Or unfit for work - presumably the OP has decent terms for sick pay, but of course sickness absence is a risk factor for redundancies, which is now commonplace in councils.


It is wrong to assume that councils care about morals or being nice. It they ever did (and I believe that was more of a myth perpetuated by people who hadn't worked for one) they certainly do not now. Their primary focus is delivering services that the public still expect them to deliver on a fraction of the money needed to deliver those services. Sick employees are deadweight. They get too good a deal. And that is not MY opinion - it is the repeatedly reiterated opinion of the general public when asked about sickness rates amongst council workers! Too generous, too good, get rid of them.


Personally I agree that the decision was unreasonable (but not illegal) and harsh. But it can't be had both ways. This is the reality of being a council employee these days. Even the OP apologised for their employment (and I see no reason why they should have done). If people want to bash public sector employees for having it easy, what has happened to the OP is the result. People thought that the private sector was so much more effective and efficient because it had no other motivation than money, this is the result - a public sector that is becoming more like the private sector.


Yes, some good employers might have paid for a taxi to take the OP back - good employers are now few and far between. As the Chinese would say, people need to be careful what they wish for. The public have got what they wished for, in more ways than one, and the OP's situation is the thin end of the wedge. It's ever so easy to blame everything on greedy public sector workers, benefit scroungers, or whatever. And it might only have been the wish of the vocal minority. If it was, the majority need to examine why they weren't more "vocal". This is what we have left - employers who don't care about their employees and who don't need to, because the law, if they can even afford it, is rarely on their side.