Forced to resign due to disability - need advice

Genuineguy03

Savvy_sue

Here you go http://m.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=6074

Its under what does reasonable mean and refers to it as changing working hours

And yes phased return is there too, but as stated it not necassery a reasonable adjustment on its own if the employees condition is on going.

Genuineguy03

@nicechap

I guess you missed the part where I said employers have to make reasonable adjustments unless there is an exception in law. So as costs. Don't in the ops case I doubt they could rely on cost being an exception avaible to them - its a university for crying out loud! If a small business making little profit then fair enough. But a university.

How about we don't move away from specific circumstances of the OPs situation when debating points of law.

Savvy_Sue

Genuineguy03 wrote: »

Savvy_sue

Here you go http://m.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=6074

Its under what does reasonable mean and refers to it as changing working hours

but CHANGING working hours is not the same as REDUCING working hours. And specifically, the suggestions I have seen related to allowing a worker to come in earlier or later to reduce travel difficulties.

I'll say it again. The OP's manager has said they do not want any p/t workers in the team. They may have very good reasons for that. So they have determined that the request the OP has made is not reasonable. You disagree. That's fine, but there is no law, and no example I have found, which says that an employer MUST allow an employee to go part-time.

It's the same as when someone requests a change to their working hours via a flexible working request - which the OP could formally do - I don't get the impression they have yet. You're strongly advised to explain how your request can be made to work, in particular how if you're reducing hours your workload can be dealt with. Suggesting someone else is taken on part-time is unlikely to be a winning argument - because the manager doesn't want part-timers.

Now IF the OP had NOT had a nervous breakdown, it might be worth putting up a fight. But they have, and before you jump up and down about that, the OP says it was 'factors outside work'.

However much the OP used to love their job, looking for part-time work is a much better option than trying to make the employer reduce hours on the current one.

Genuineguy03

Savvy-sue

Changing working hours, is open to many interpretation. It can mean changing start or end time like you implied, but its not limited to that. As it can mean changing total number of hours too. I.e. changing contracted "hours of work".

I.e. to quote what is an employees contractual terms "your hours of work are 37.5 hours per week" changing hours of work can therefore include a variation of hours of work.

Now I didn't because I wanted to proof a point, that everyone that's disagreed with me on reduction being a reasonable adjustment wrong. I had hope I didn't gave embarress or show up people lack of knowledge despite people question mine, in a somewhat bullying fashion.

Eupean court of justices rulings - Ring v Dansk almennyttigt Boligselskab DAB

And

Skouboe Werge v Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening

Both confirm reduction in hours is a reasonable adjustment.that an employer should consider. If said reduction in hours would enable the employee to remain in employment.

The OPs manager doesn't have a choice if he wants to avoid losing a tribunal claim and paying the op substantial damages!

NeilCr

Genuineguy03 wrote: »

The OPs manager doesn't have a choice if he wants to avoid losing a tribunal claim and paying the op substantial damages!

Well, actually, the manager does have a choice. Even if you are right the manager may a) think it's worth a punt that the ET doesn't agree with you b) does not know enough about the law c) calculates that the OP won't go down the tribunal route.

I very much agree with Savvy Sue that it may well not be in the OP's best interest to get involved in the fight given the fact that they have had a nervous breakdown.

I am not sure how much actual face to face experience you have had in dealing with employment issues - as opposed to trawling the internet and giving advice on forums. I've had quite a bit - HR, Union rep, volunteer - and as someone else said there are many shades of grey out there. It isn't as black and white as you seem to think it is.

Unfortunately, quoting ECJ rulings at a number of employers will get you nowhere - except maybe out the door. We all might think that is unfair - it is, however, the real world and when giving advice you have to take that into account. Ohe of the first things I always ask someone is what outcome do you want - and start from there.

I have to say I stay away from this forum, normally. There have been a few remarks about not trusting the advice here and I can see why (that's a general comment). The problem is that paid for advice is expensive and beyond the reach of many. I, strongly, echo the view that joining a union is a good thing.

nicechap

NeilCr wrote: »

Well, actually, the manager does have a choice. Even if you are right the manager may a) think it's worth a punt that the ET doesn't agree with you b) does not know enough about the law c) calculates that the OP won't go down the tribunal route.

I very much agree with Savvy Sue that it may well not be in the OP's best interest to get involved in the fight given the fact that they have had a nervous breakdown.

I am not sure how much actual face to face experience you have had in dealing with employment issues - as opposed to trawling the internet and giving advice on forums. I've had quite a bit - HR, Union rep, volunteer - and as someone else said there are many shades of grey out there. It isn't as black and white as you seem to think it is.

Unfortunately, quoting ECJ rulings at a number of employers will get you nowhere - except maybe out the door. We all might think that is unfair - it is, however, the real world and when giving advice you have to take that into account. Ohe of the first things I always ask someone is what outcome do you want - and start from there.

I have to say I stay away from this forum, normally. There have been a few remarks about not trusting the advice here and I can see why (that's a general comment). The problem is that paid for advice is expensive and beyond the reach of many. I, strongly, echo the view that joining a union is a good thing.

True that Neil.

I'm going from memory but if I recall what Sangie has said before only about 7% of Tribunal claims are won by the employee and then awards are typically under £10k.

The stress and uncertainty when up against a well funded employer who have engaged highly intelligent lawyers and barristers is more than most ordinary people can handle (something like 50% of cases are withdrawn before getting to tribunal). Plus it takes 6 -18 months before progressing to a hearing.

Providing false hope by suggesting taking a dispute to a tribunal because its an easy and certain win is irresponsible. But then, when you've no personal skin in the game its easy to pretend you're an expert on the internet.

Undervalued

nicechap wrote: »

True that Neil.

I'm going from memory but if I recall what Sangie has said before only about 7% of Tribunal claims are won by the employee and then awards are typically under £10k.

The stress and uncertainty when up against a well funded employer who have engaged highly intelligent lawyers and barristers is more than most ordinary people can handle (something like 50% of cases are withdrawn before getting to tribunal). Plus it takes 6 -18 months before progressing to a hearing.

Providing false hope by suggesting taking a dispute to a tribunal because its an easy and certain win is irresponsible. But then, when you've no personal skin in the game its easy to pretend you're an expert on the internet.

Exactly!

To be fair, regarding your second paragraph, it can work both ways. A claimant with a good case and backed by their union will have equal or sometimes better resources. Fighting a case takes large amounts of a company's time which they may feel could be put to better use. So it is not uncommon for companies to settle cases they may well have won.

Cases of genuine unlawful discrimination can sometimes lead to more significant payouts. Whilst that is good for those that have genuinely suffered, it unfortunately leads to far too many people playing the "discrimination card" when it is not warranted in the hope of forcing a settlement.

Like you, it horrifies me to see misguided ( being charitable!) posters cropping up on here, as happens from time to time, giving a totally false impression.

NeilCr

Undervalued wrote: »

Like you, it horrifies me to see misguided ( being charitable!) posters cropping up on here, as happens from time to time, giving a totally false impression.

Indeed.

Quite how anybody can have such certainty from a few forum posts by the OP and without hearing the other side's case is beyond me.

On a number of occasions I have been on the phone to the DWP or an employer about a client. The person at the other end has said "Can the client hear this conversation" and when I've said no has imparted a huge nugget of information that, apparently, slipped the client's mind. I am not saying the OP has done this. Again, it's a general point

Genuineguy03

Below is my original post again, just for those of you that clearly didn't read it, misquoted what I said, alleged I misguided the OP, alleged I was advising the OP to go tribunal. Alledging I said the employer "Hadto" or "Has to" take on other employees.

""The employer has to make reasonable adjustments to help and support employees to manage or recover from their disabilities - they have such obligations not just in case law or legislation, but under implied term of duty if care to protect the well being, health and safety of the employee. In this case, their saying they don't want part time workers is unreasonable which is what the OP said her boss told her, there's no reason they can't allow her to work part time or flexi time and employ some one else on temp contract to take up the slack where's " had to" or "has to". And I suspect they know this, hence trying to persuade the OP to resign rather than risk potential claim for unfair dismissal. no suggestion that the OP go to tribunal there

Due to the above and given its perfectly reasonable to expect an employee may have additional absences during phased return or upon return to work off course its reasonable to expect an employing suffering from a mental or phyiscal disability, illness, or conditions to have more absenses as a result of their condition. It be unreasonable not too. And given the OP is still capable if doing her job when he/she is at work, then the OP can not be dismissed on capability grounds, when their are alternative routes the employer could follow, such as no " have to" or "had to" just "such as" meaning as an example employer temp contract to make up the hours.

Educational institutions as notorious and in my experience make some if the worse offenders in getting it wrong in employment matters - guess it's to do with there looking down there noses attitude.""

Guess a few here have the sane looking down there noses attitude. Certainly a lot that like to take what is stated be others out if context and accuse them of saying things they never said to begin with. Also a lot of people seem to thing their opinion supersides the law, or even that the word is gospel and not open to interpretation or hasn't already been interpreted (case law)

So, come on, anyone else want to accuse me of being wrong or saying something I never said or want to add words that never came out of my mouth. Or how even taking what I said out if context and twisting it like a knife!

Do any off you even have the guts to even apologise and accept you were wrong? Not just to me but primarily to the OP!

[Deleted User]

Genuineguy03 wrote: »

Savvy-sue

Changing working hours, is open to many interpretation. It can mean changing start or end time like you implied, but its not limited to that. As it can mean changing total number of hours too. I.e. changing contracted "hours of work".

I.e. to quote what is an employees contractual terms "your hours of work are 37.5 hours per week" changing hours of work can therefore include a variation of hours of work.

Now I didn't because I wanted to proof a point, that everyone that's disagreed with me on reduction being a reasonable adjustment wrong. I had hope I didn't gave embarress or show up people lack of knowledge despite people question mine, in a somewhat bullying fashion.

Eupean court of justices rulings - Ring v Dansk almennyttigt Boligselskab DAB

And

Skouboe Werge v Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening

Both confirm reduction in hours is a reasonable adjustment.that an employer should consider. If said reduction in hours would enable the employee to remain in employment.

The OPs manager doesn't have a choice if he wants to avoid losing a tribunal claim and paying the op substantial damages!

Genuineguy03 wrote: »

Below is my original post again, just for those of you that clearly didn't read it, misquoted what I said, alleged I misguided the OP, alleged I was advising the OP to go tribunal. Alledging I said the employer "Hadto" or "Has to" take on other employees.

""The employer has to make reasonable adjustments to help and support employees to manage or recover from their disabilities - they have such obligations not just in case law or legislation, but under implied term of duty if care to protect the well being, health and safety of the employee. In this case, their saying they don't want part time workers is unreasonable which is what the OP said her boss told her, there's no reason they can't allow her to work part time or flexi time and employ some one else on temp contract to take up the slack where's " had to" or "has to". And I suspect they know this, hence trying to persuade the OP to resign rather than risk potential claim for unfair dismissal. no suggestion that the OP go to tribunal there

Due to the above and given its perfectly reasonable to expect an employee may have additional absences during phased return or upon return to work off course its reasonable to expect an employing suffering from a mental or phyiscal disability, illness, or conditions to have more absenses as a result of their condition. It be unreasonable not too. And given the OP is still capable if doing her job when he/she is at work, then the OP can not be dismissed on capability grounds, when their are alternative routes the employer could follow, such as no " have to" or "had to" just "such as" meaning as an example employer temp contract to make up the hours.

Educational institutions as notorious and in my experience make some if the worse offenders in getting it wrong in employment matters - guess it's to do with there looking down there noses attitude.""

Guess a few here have the sane looking down there noses attitude. Certainly a lot that like to take what is stated be others out if context and accuse them of saying things they never said to begin with. Also a lot of people seem to thing their opinion supersides the law, or even that the word is gospel and not open to interpretation or hasn't already been interpreted (case law)

So, come on, anyone else want to accuse me of being wrong or saying something I never said or want to add words that never came out of my mouth. Or how even taking what I said out if context and twisting it like a knife!

Do any off you even have the guts to even apologise and accept you were wrong? Not just to me but primarily to the OP!

apologise for what