Does my employer have a duty of care?

KatrinaWaves

Things I am confused by:

You say his lorry is used because the other men are asleep in the lorries, then you say his lorry is only used because they have forgotten to not use it. Which is it? if there are always spare, suitable lorries on the yard then yes this could be seen as reasonable. if men are asleep in them, then that is not suitable...

What do you mean that the night job makes £20 and he is worth more than £20. How does this relate to his requests? 

unforeseen

I assume that the immuno suppressant is Methotrexate for his RA.
I am on 20mg for severe psoriasis which is the top end of an RA dose and have never had any problems apart from things like colds hitting harder than they used to. He will have had the Flu and Pneumonia vaccinations so will be OK there. 

You are over thinking the perceived problem of low hygiene and immuno suppressants

frogga

Hi Both, I am truey grateful that you are corresponding with me.  I will clarify, my fault for not being clear.
His lorry is not used EVERY night.  Just when there is a job available, and when they forget to use one of the others.  I'm guessing but there are about 15 lorries, 10 slept in, 5 empty.  Sometimes they use his when there are 4 sitting there, and that's when he gets cheesed off.  It is a real inconvenience to him with the seat move, steering wheel move, mirrors etc. If you imagine the lorry is like your mini home.  It has personal wash things, sleeping bag and pillow, devises etc.  It would take a lot to empty it every night on the off chance that someone uses it.  He has had his lorry used by a stranger who then stole some of his stuff.  Just deodorant, and clip board and some food, but even so it's theft of personal items.  The bosses are not interested. That is another reason that it cheeses him off.
HE was on Methotrexate but now he is on Rituximab.  It is administered through a drip which takes about 6 hours, a bit like Chemo. On his medical notes it says there is an increased risk of infection with this drug. They are stressing this a lot. He needs to avoid exposure to infections, people with shingles or chicken pox eg. Because of the COPD as well he needs to avoid a chest infection as even a common cold can be very serious. He has little immune system and a cough can soon become pneumonia. 
As for the £20 comment, they told him the lorry makes them £20 for an overnight job, and that I guess 'every little helps' in business.  When I say 'he feels he is worth more than £20, I guess I mean he feels his health and well being should be more important to them than making £20.  I guess it isn't.  Because he has worked for them for 13 years, like I say never taking time off, being late, even working the day of his parents deaths, he thought they would forego £20 out of 'loyalty' to him?  I am sure you are right about me over thinking.  I'm just worried.
thanks again both x

BooJewels

I can't offer any specific knowledgeable advice that would help you, but I can offer some solidarity.  

My husband has significant health issues and being immuno-suppressed is one of the resulting issues.  He spent months - in the end through lawyers, consultant's letters and ACAS - trying to get his employer to grasp even the most basic aspects of office hygiene considerations and 'making reasonable adjustments' - and yes, he is legally disabled - but in the end, they parted company and he's since lost another job because of his health.  Being loyal long term and working hard counts for nothing when it comes to a business's bottom line.  Small family businesses are perhaps worse than large corporations as they simply don't have the infrastruture or capacity to absorb adjustments in the same way - and I do understand that.  In our case, the adjustments we were asking for weren't even costly or onerous - largely a change in attitude by people and a little consideration.  Their point was they just didn't see why they should - they just didn't want to.

The posts in this thread that aren't grasping your concerns just illustrate the way people generally react to issues like this - we have a perpetual problem, even with family, trying to explain why he can't eat openly displayed deli food, or unpasturised dairy products - even fruit like strawberries.  The risk is very real, he's just come out of hospital after catching flu off me mid-December (I caught it from someone in the queue next to me in M&S) and it turning into pneumonia, then some other non-specific virulent infection and spending about 6 weeks on antibiotic drips.  He currently lives on prophylactic antibiotics, anti virals and anti fungals.  One person's 'I don't see what the fuss is about' comment, could be a serious risk to someone else's life.

I have to warn you, I really don't think you're going to convince the employer in any way - people simply don't get it, or care very much.  I wish I had a fiver for every person that said to me "but they can't do that!" or "they can't fire you for having cancer, they're not allowed"  Because they can and they do.  

frogga

I'm sorry nice chap I missed your post.  Thank you for you comments.  I promise you he takes the job VERY seriously and spends considerable time making the adjustments before driving.  It's just that it takes considerable time, and sometimes the seat is never quite right again.  A bit too forward, a bit too backward etc, it makes a difference.  I agree 9 hours is not enough, but it is all the law requires.  It means you have no quality of life.  In that 9 hour break, you have to drive to and from work, have your tea, a bath and a sit down, and a sleep! They have no care about this. He just asks that he either does earlies, or lates, not a mixture of both depending on what suits them. 
THANK YOU Boojewels Your solidarity is much appreciated.  When I read back my post I think it does sound like I'm being a whinging moaner wanting the earth.  But it's just a little consideration and thoughtfulness.  Mr Frog caught a bad chest from me in December. I work in a school and the children sneeze and cough on you all the time.  Like your other half he ended up in hospital with double pneumonia over Christmas.  He was back to work in January and they didn't even know he'd been unwell. 
We have one year of mortgage left, and then we can cope on my money and he can retire.  Can't come soon enough.  I will feel sad if he left, as he has been loyal.  HE often goes above and beyond, doesn't claim for things he should do.  I moan and he says 'but it's a family business they can't afford XYZ', but all 3 children go to private school!  No loyalty is shown back.

nicechap

A sensible shift pattern and extra time at the start of shifts to adjust seat, mirrors etc, and longer breaks would all fall into the category of reasonable adjustments (just my view & they might be unpaid) but having a dedicated truck wouldn't. Whilst I don't pretend to know the income & costs of a haulage firm (there used to be a regular contributor  - smodlet? - here who ran their own firm who would have been really useful in helping your understand their setup, imperatives etc), I suspect the £20 is not the full differential. For the sake of arguement, say the deliveries your husband makes earns the company, £500, whereas the night agency driver might earn the company £520. Although that's a £20 difference, by having the vehicle being used for longer they are generating an extra £520, not just the £20 difference. That's the way the accountant would look at it.

Savvy_Sue

frogga said:

He is not in a union, I did try to persuade him a while ago but the firm said they don't recognise the union anyway!

the firm doesn't have to 'recognise' the union. But if there is ever a disciplinary process, then they have no choice: he is entitled to have a union representative with him for certain parts. AND if was able to present a solution with the words "my union advises / suggests that ..." then it OUGHT to slightly concentrate their minds. 

However, it sounds as if he would benefit from an Occupational Health Assessment. I have a niggling feeling that he can ask for one himself, but cannot find a source for this tonight, hoping someone can confirm or deny. Again, the company can ignore their recommendations, or even say that the 'reasonable adjustments' suggested cannot be made - and it does sound as if that is their response in practice. 

But I think I would be looking at how to survive the final year of mortgage payments without his income, or to see if there is any other job he could do. 

frogga

Thanks for both replies last night.  
He has had long heart to hearts with them, when they have agreed to keep giving him regular shifts, as best as is possible, not ask him to do double jobs etc, and it is all ok for a short while, but then it slips back again to them 'messing him around'.  At that point I always tell him to 'remind' them of the agreement, but he is embarrassed to keep going on about it and feels like a wuss keep making a fuss.  Another good example happened yesterday ~
He started work at 4am.  Was waiting to be unloaded at 1pm but was waiting in a queue due to the winds.  At this point he'd been working for 9 hours.  The wife then phoned him and asked him to do a 'quick' second job.  He said no as he's been up since 3am, she said 'well you started at 4am and it's only 1pm?'  He then explained (which she knew perfectly well) that he would not be unloaded until 3pm, and if he did the quick second job by the time he was there and back it would be 7pm.  Therefore a 15 hour day, which they agreed they wouldn't ask him to work anymore.  I mean when is 9 hours considered a short day anyway???!!!  And before any of you shout at me about how long he is legally allowed to drive the lorry this was not 15 hours continuous driving as it included being unloaded.  HE is a fully qualified professional HGV driver of many years standing and knows the law and works within the regulations at all times. The likelihood of him actually getting back before time ran out yesterday if he had of done the second job was slim anyway which would have meant sleeping in the cab and no medication/ hot meal. 
They just take advantage.  They keep agreeing to make allowances, and then they ask him to 'just do this' and he's too good to say no.

KatrinaWaves

They are allowed to ask. He is allowed to say no.

by the sounds of it he mostly agrees to the other things. If they ask and he agrees, you can’t get annoyed at them for asking. It also undermines him saying he can’t do it.

Did he put his foot down yesterday and refuse? 

BooJewels

Savvy_Sue said:

However, it sounds as if he would benefit from an Occupational Health Assessment. I have a niggling feeling that he can ask for one himself, but cannot find a source for this tonight, hoping someone can confirm or deny. Again, the company can ignore their recommendations, or even say that the 'reasonable adjustments' suggested cannot be made - and it does sound as if that is their response in practice. 

In our case, as I mentioned in my earlier post, my husband's employer engaged an OH assessment.  My husband went into it a bit defensively, thinking it would be very biased and the doctor would be doing the employer's bidding, on account of them paying his substantial fee (and we'd seen the report they'd sent to him and what they were asking about - very loaded suggestions like "he won't be able to do this, will he").  But in the end, the report was eminently sensible and said exactly what we hoped it would, recommending the adjustments he had himself already asked for.  So the employer chose to variously ignore it, misinterpret it (there were three words that became the stick they beat him with) and then bad mouth the doctor and try to get a second opinion, saying that his reasonable adjustments were clearly preposterous and unworkable.

So, whilst OH should be a very useful tool for both parties, depending on what their individual agendas are, I have a feeling that frogga's situation might well mirror our own - doubly so if they engage an OH assessment for themselves, the employer might simply refuse to accept its findings.  My husband's employer did that, we think because the doctor was as impartial as he promised he would be (and obviously should be) and that in itself didn't sit well with them - it hadn't said what they hoped.