Forced to resign due to disability - need advice

nicechap

Masomnia wrote: »

A lesser workload/lower targets quite often is a reasonable adjustment.

It can be but we have a semantically challenged contributor who is struggling to understand that what "can be" does not equate to "has to be".

So in one organisation moving someone to part time hours might be easy and accommodated but in another it might be very difficult and not financially sensible.

I would suggest that most organisations might temporarily allow a lower target/ workload (dependent on individual circumstances), but to do so long term would be unfair and likely to lead to poor morale and resentment amongst rest of the workforce. If you are paid £100 to make 10 widgets, would you be happy that your neighbour earns £100 for making 5 widgets? As a boss/ owner, would you like your costs to double?

The Employment Appeal Tribunal's (EAT) decision in Cordell v FCO provides important clarification on the approach that tribunals should take when considering cost as the reason for a refusal to make a reasonable adjustment to accommodate an employee's disability (UKEAT/0016/11). The decision was reassuring for employers, in that it confirms that an employer can refuse to make adjustments on the basis of cost alone.

Genuineguy03

Nicechap

Try argue that to a tribunal that an employer doesn't have to make reasonable adjustments even if they "can do". You won't get very far, just like the employers in case law Ive referenced on the forum today, didn't get far for not making reasonable adjustments. And oh look the employers lost.

Masomnia

nicechap wrote: »

It can be but we have a semantically challenged contributor who is struggling to understand that what "can be" does not equate to "has to be".

So in one organisation moving someone to part time hours might be easy and accommodated but in another it might be very difficult and not financially sensible.

I would suggest that most organisations might temporarily allow a lower target/ workload (dependent on individual circumstances), but to do so long term would be unfair and likely to lead to poor morale and resentment amongst rest of the workforce. If you are paid £100 to make 10 widgets, would you be happy that your neighbour earns £100 for making 5 widgets? As a boss/ owner, would you like your costs to double?

The Employment Appeal Tribunal's (EAT) decision in Cordell v FCO provides important clarification on the approach that tribunals should take when considering cost as the reason for a refusal to make a reasonable adjustment to accommodate an employee's disability (UKEAT/0016/11). The decision was reassuring for employers, in that it confirms that an employer can refuse to make adjustments on the basis of cost alone.

Marliepanda was equally certain when she stated that it was not reasonable. 'Not at all'.

She stated that 'Sorry but no disabled person has the right to expect their work to simply be given to someone else when they dont want to/cant do it. ' Often this is reasonable.

Plagiarizing Thomson Reuters won't help you.

Savvy_Sue

I've been trying to come at this from the other side, and a bit of googling later I cannot see 'reducing the hours of a f/t worker so that they can work p/t' in any of the lists about what might constitute 'reasonable adjustments', eg CAB guidance.

Whenever we're advertising a job, if we think it can be done p/t or as a jobshare, we'll say so, but for some jobs we want a f/t worker. End of.

The manager has made it clear that they do not want p/t staff in that dept. We and the OP can consider this unreasonable, but a) there's nothing to say it is and b) attempting to assert their rights isn't going to end well, because the manager doesn't want them there p/t.

EVEN IF there were a very clear cut case to take to an employment tribunal, it does not sound as if this would be a good course for the OP to pursue. It would be hugely stressful and uncertain of success, and at the end of it they still wouldn't be working.

So hanging onto this job for as long as possible, while at the same time looking at other roles with the employer which actually ARE p/t, seems to me the most sensible strategy.

Masomnia

I don't want to pick on people or get into debates, but this happens a lot on this forum. People get hounded and their posts picked apart completely unnecessarily. It's really ugly and doesn't reflect well.

Masomnia

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

I've been trying to come at this from the other side, and a bit of googling later I cannot see 'reducing the hours of a f/t worker so that they can work p/t' in any of the lists about what might constitute 'reasonable adjustments', eg CAB guidance.

Whenever we're advertising a job, if we think it can be done p/t or as a jobshare, we'll say so, but for some jobs we want a f/t worker. End of.

The manager has made it clear that they do not want p/t staff in that dept. We and the OP can consider this unreasonable, but a) there's nothing to say it is and b) attempting to assert their rights isn't going to end well, because the manager doesn't want them there p/t.

EVEN IF there were a very clear cut case to take to an employment tribunal, it does not sound as if this would be a good course for the OP to pursue. It would be hugely stressful and uncertain of success, and at the end of it they still wouldn't be working.

So hanging onto this job for as long as possible, while at the same time looking at other roles with the employer which actually ARE p/t, seems to me the most sensible strategy.

It very much depends on the facts of each case. Ultimately whether something amounts to a reasonable adjustment or not, or the failure to make a reasonable adjustment, is down to a judge in the tribunal. There is no fixed list of what counts and what doesn't.

2e0arr

Join a union

nicechap

Masomnia wrote: »

Marliepanda was equally certain when she stated that it was not reasonable. 'Not at all'.

She stated that 'Sorry but no disabled person has the right to expect their work to simply be given to someone else when they dont want to/cant do it. ' Often this is reasonable.

Plagiarizing Thomson Reuters won't help you.

Apologies, for those that want a link:

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/2-509-5011?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&comp=pluk&bhcp=1

As you point out Marlipanda qualified their position.

[Deleted User]

Andromeda14 wrote: »

I have seen him give 'off the record' telephone references before to other managers about former members of staff which has resulted in them not being offered jobs which is my worry. But I suppose there's not really anything I can do about that.

Not sure the organisation would get away with it, not now under GDPR - I know this will put the cat amongst the pigeons, but I received a letter this week from my very last employer asking for a signature and actual written consent needs to be given whether they are OR aren't to give references, under what is labelled a Personal Information Authority Form and it states they won't respond to any requests (which will limited info anyway they will only confirm dates, job title and reason for leaving) until the express consent is received in writing. Well that's the good news should you leave.

Masomnia

Deleted%20User wrote: »

Not sure the organisation would get away with it, not now under GDPR - I know this will put the cat amongst the pigeons, but I received a letter this week from my very last employer asking for a signature and actual written consent needs to be given whether they are OR aren't to give references, under what is labelled a Personal Information Authority Form and it states they won't respond to any requests (which will limited info anyway they will only confirm dates, job title and reason for leaving) until the express consent is received in writing. Well that's the good news should you leave.

Interesting, that's a new one on me!