Friends rights on sickness?

Viberduo

James_B. wrote: »

I'd really not be happy if a member of staff asked to come in to work with me every day, in my car, and expected that I'd agree for their good.

Yes, some people would find this strange, but it's still my car. Why would I compromise, every single day, on my ability to choose to come in when I want? Why would I risk making myself late? Why would I commit to letting someone know if I decided to stay out late on a night out and stay in a hotel, or to have a drink and choose a later start time?

It is wholly unreasonable to expect someone to get your friend to work, no matter how much he might like the idea.



It did not mean nothing, which is why they paid him for that service. That was the deal, you come in and do the job, and you get paid for it. It sounds like they've been very accomodative down the years, despite him being what seems to be quite a difficult person to manage.

You are looking at this the wrong way, its 2 supervisors who work the shift and currently share between the 2 of them, and my friend would be happy to pick them up in his own car so its nothing to do with him just expecting it plus he would have no problem say if they said they were going for a drink after work and he wasnt invited as it was just for supervisors even if he was the one doing the driving in fact if anything he would get used as my friend is a pushover and not difficult to manage in the slightest due to this if anything he has missed oppurtunies by being walked over.

I should also mention that these 2 supervisors have zero issues with giving other people lifts its just they dont like my friend as he is strange but anyone would be strange if they were travelling that much and had a relative with cancer they cared for and struggled to pay bills!

I dont think its a right to get a lift but it would just help my friend a lot

Takeaway_Addict

Viberduo wrote: »

You are looking at this the wrong way, its 2 supervisors who work the shift and currently share between the 2 of them, and my friend would be happy to pick them up in his own car so its nothing to do with him just expecting it plus he would have no problem say if they said they were going for a drink after work and he wasnt invited as it was just for supervisors even if he was the one doing the driving in fact if anything he would get used as my friend is a pushover and not difficult to manage in the slightest due to this if anything he has missed oppurtunies by being walked over.

I should also mention that these 2 supervisors have zero issues with giving other people lifts its just they dont like my friend as he is strange but anyone would be strange if they were travelling that much and had a relative with cancer they cared for and struggled to pay bills!

I dont think its a right to get a lift but it would just help my friend a lot

but ultimately, it is the supervisors choice to give lifts to whoever they feel and if there is someone I don't like I'm not sure I would want to be in a car everyday with them when I try and destress

dori2o

Another_not_new_user wrote: »

But the problem is that having 15 stores within 15 miles does not mean that there are any jobs available that are suitable for him. You do need to understand that no matter what the situation, there is no right to a transfer here - if the employer gives him one then it is a "favour". And I am sorry, because this is going to go into the list of things you won't want to hear, but if I was a store manager faced with an ask to see if I could find a job for someone who is often in hospital and demands hourly rests breaks to check blood sugar and/or eat - sorry but I wouldn't be looking too hard. Employers do these sorts of things for staff who are too valuable or loyal for them to want to lose. Your friend simply isn't going to fit into that category. So I am afraid that I wouldn't suggest holding your breath on him ever getting a transfer. I may be wrong and I'd be delighted for him if I were - but I bet I am not.

I would suggest you take a look at the Equality Act and the relevant case law that goes with it as part of what you are saying is complete bunkum.

The employer has a legal duty to consider reasonable adjustments, and if that means relocation then they have look into that, they can't simply say no.

As for not looking too hard to find an adjustment due to time off etc, then that I'm afraid is a clear case of disability discrimination on the grounds of failing to make/consider reasonable adjustments.

OP, the law is there to protect your friend, I suggest you/they look up what duties the Equality Act forces upon employers, and if the employer is refusing to assist in making reasonable adjustments then I suggest your friend submit a grievance immediately.

Submitting the grievance means the employer has to investigate the issue, and it also ensures there is a paper trail in place should your friend wish to take this further.

As disability discrimination is a protected right then they do not have to have been working for the employer for 2 years in order to bring a claim of disability discrimination/unfair dismissal on the grounds of discrimination(should it come to that) as you would for other claims.

If he is not already doing so then get him to complete a diary of everything that happens everyday and every conversation that he has with management. Include in that any issues he has healthwise throughout the day not just issues with his employer.

pmduk

OP it's very difficult getting advice for a friend as you only ever get the story from your friend's perspective, which with the best possible intention is never the entire picture.

I suggest your friend contacts his local community diabetes team who may be able to give on-the-spot advice. Additionally Diabetes UK may be able to give more intensive employment advice.

Takeaway_Addict

dori2o wrote: »

I would suggest you take a look at the Equality Act and the relevant case law that goes with it as part of what you are saying is complete bunkum.

The employer has a legal duty to consider reasonable adjustments, and if that means relocation then they have look into that, they can't simply say no.

As for not looking too hard to find an adjustment due to time off etc, then that I'm afraid is a clear case of disability discrimination on the grounds of failing to make/consider reasonable adjustments.

OP, the law is there to protect your friend, I suggest you/they look up what duties the Equality Act forces upon employers, and if the employer is refusing to assist in making reasonable adjustments then I suggest your friend submit a grievance immediately.

Submitting the grievance means the employer has to investigate the issue, and it also ensures there is a paper trail in place should your friend wish to take this further.

As disability discrimination is a protected right then they do not have to have been working for the employer for 2 years in order to bring a claim of disability discrimination/unfair dismissal on the grounds of discrimination(should it come to that) as you would for other claims.

If he is not already doing so then get him to complete a diary of everything that happens everyday and every conversation that he has with management. Include in that any issues he has healthwise throughout the day not just issues with his employer.

The employer does not have to create a role within a store though for said person, if there is one available then yes this maybe a reasonable adjustment but if not then as before.

And the poster is well aware of the equality act 2010 I'm sure

dori2o

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

The employer does not have to create a role within a store though for said person, if there is one available then yes this maybe a reasonable adjustment but if not then as before.

And the poster is well aware of the equality act 2010 I'm sure

I agree, they dont have to create a position, but from reading what the OP has said the employer doesnt seem to have considered reasonable adjustments.

I was also making the point to the user I quoted that the employer cannot simply ignore the issue as they were suggesting, even if this employee does need time off for appointments etc, and to tell an employee whose condition is likely to be considered a disability under the equality that they cannot have any more time off is again a form of discrimination as the employer has to make allowances for their condition, which includes making allowances for absences etc.

Bantex_2

dori2o wrote: »

I agree, they dont have to create a position, but from reading what the OP has said the employer doesnt seem to have considered reasonable adjustments.

I was also making the point to the user I quoted that the employer cannot simply ignore the issue as they were suggesting, even if this employee does need time off for appointments etc, and to tell an employee whose condition is likely to be considered a disability under the equality that they cannot have any more time off is again a form of discrimination as the employer has to make allowances for their condition, which includes making allowances for absences etc.

Only if they are considered reasonable.
At some point competancy may come into the equation if pushed too far.
This is private sector.

dori2o

Bantex wrote: »

Only if they are considered reasonable.
At some point competancy may come into the equation if pushed too far.
This is private sector.

They still have to consider reasonable adjustments, and allowances for additional absence are reasonable. There may however be a question as to how much is reasonable.

The fact this is private sector means nothing, they are subject to the equality act just like everyone else.

Undervalued

dori2o wrote: »

The fact this is private sector means nothing, they are subject to the equality act just like everyone else.

True, to a point.

The size of the company is very relevant as generally a tribunal, who would ultimately have to decided what is reasonable, will expect more from a larger organisation than a small company.

Although some organisations will go far further than the law would insist, "reasonable adjustments" are often a lot less than people fondly imagine.

Bantex_2

Undervalued wrote: »

True, to a point.

The size of the company is very relevant as generally a tribunal, who would ultimately have to decided what is reasonable, will expect more from a larger organisation than a small company.

Although some organisations will go far further than the law would insist, "reasonable adjustments" are often a lot less than people fondly imagine.

If a company can show that they could be commercially disadvantaged, the adjustments could well be deemed unreasonable. The public sector does not have to deal with such realities.