Employer reduced salary/bonus after disclosing illness

gooders77

I recently informed my employer that I am suffering from G.A.D. We had a long conversation and during this conversation that they disclosed to me that they have reduced my discretionary bonus because they havent seen for the last month that I havent given them 100% dispite the part of the business I work in (2 of us in a team) is exceeding its targets. Although my employer claims they made the decision a week before I told them I was left with the impression they werent going to tell me until I saw it in my pay. 

This discretionary bonus as been the same amount for 3 years. On this basis I feel it should be part of my contractual salary. 

It has made me feel because I have this mental health condition I am now being penalised for this by reducing my money. Even if they had spoken to me before they reduced the bonus and asked what is going on instead of acting I wouldnt be so annoyed. I now feel I dont think I can trust my employer. Before I go talking to a solicitor or ACAS what are other peoples thoughts on this? 

[Deleted User]

They've reduced your bonus due to performance, rather than your mental health. Bonuses are always discretionary, so this doesn't merit spending any more of your time on.

It definitely not part of your contractual salary. 

gooders77

Deleted_User said:

They've reduced your bonus due to performance, rather than your mental health. Bonuses are always discretionary, so this doesn't merit spending any more of your time on.

It definitely not part of your contractual salary. 

Ok so on the basis they told me after I told them I was suffering G.A.D they can just do that? 

To me it comes across that they have punished me for telling them of my issues. 

My point is I may not of had an issue with it they had discussed this with me before I told them. 

Dakta

It's going to be very difficult because you yourself have referred to it as a discretionary bonus. This suggests it's a bonus and that it's discretionary. A loss or drop in bonus isn't a drop in contracted pay so the argument you had taken a loss in income wouldn't run, and as the bonus is discretionary it would seem it's discretionary so the company has freedom to remove/reduce/increase as they seem fit.tgey seem to say this is because they have seen a drop in performance and I can't myself see how that wouldn't stand especially if there have been issues affecting this.

Despite this I do actually think it would have better if they'd been a bit more interested, I don't think it's motivating when a bonus becomes a penalising tool as opposed to an award but it's a tricky landscape and one can easily blend in to another. A company could feel it's awarding staff by giving performance linked bonuses but it can quickly be interpreted as a punishment if peers become aware of the differences... It might make the whole bonus concept too much hassle let's award with a box of chocolates in the canteen instead

Basically I think there's better ways to handle performance issues but the company I reckon has the right to do what it's done. Maybe tine to look for a change? 

[Deleted User]

Yes, they can do that.

There's nothing you nor they can do about the timing. Bonuses are typically all handled annually in bulk 

You can't changes the facts of what has happened. But you can control your reaction to it. Don't waste time or your own well being on something you can't control.

Jillanddy

There is clearly no direct link between your informing them about your condition and the reduction in bonus because they had already reduced it - they merely told you that it was reducing at the same time that you chose to disclose your GAD. And the bonus is clearly discretionary, which you have always known because you have said it was. Therefore you are not being realistic when you say that you regard the payment as contractual when you clearly know it isn't. Since they must have made the decision based on performance, that is a legitimate reason for reducing a bonus - the reason why performance may have reduced is not really relevant.

You could possibly try arguing that there should be a reasonable adjustment if your condition is such that it might qualify as a disability, but there is by no means any guarantee that GAD would. And I doubt that paying a discretionary bonus to someone who is considered to not be performing well would be classed as a reasonable adjustment.

On the other hand, if you feel your employer is not trustworthy then you should find another job. 

Undervalued

Jillanddy said:

There is clearly no direct link between your informing them about your condition and the reduction in bonus because they had already reduced it - they merely told you that it was reducing at the same time that you chose to disclose your GAD. And the bonus is clearly discretionary, which you have always known because you have said it was. Therefore you are not being realistic when you say that you regard the payment as contractual when you clearly know it isn't. Since they must have made the decision based on performance, that is a legitimate reason for reducing a bonus - the reason why performance may have reduced is not really relevant.

You could possibly try arguing that there should be a reasonable adjustment if your condition is such that it might qualify as a disability, but there is by no means any guarantee that GAD would. And I doubt that paying a discretionary bonus to someone who is considered to not be performing well would be classed as a reasonable adjustment.

On the other hand, if you feel your employer is not trustworthy then you should find another job. 

Indeed.

Whilst this kind of mental illness may possibly qualify as a disability (for employment law purposes) that tends to be the exception rather than the rule. It would need to be both long lasting (probably a year or more) and have a significant effect on your day to day activities.

Even if it did qualify (and ultimately that could only be decided by an employment tribunal if your employer won't agree) you would need to show that receiving a discretionary bonus, which could legitimately be withheld for lots of reasons, was a reasonable adjustment. 

Frankly, unless your employer readily agrees, you have a mountain to climb here which surely isn't going to help your condition one little bit.  

Jillanddy

Undervalued said:

Jillanddy said:

There is clearly no direct link between your informing them about your condition and the reduction in bonus because they had already reduced it - they merely told you that it was reducing at the same time that you chose to disclose your GAD. And the bonus is clearly discretionary, which you have always known because you have said it was. Therefore you are not being realistic when you say that you regard the payment as contractual when you clearly know it isn't. Since they must have made the decision based on performance, that is a legitimate reason for reducing a bonus - the reason why performance may have reduced is not really relevant.

You could possibly try arguing that there should be a reasonable adjustment if your condition is such that it might qualify as a disability, but there is by no means any guarantee that GAD would. And I doubt that paying a discretionary bonus to someone who is considered to not be performing well would be classed as a reasonable adjustment.

On the other hand, if you feel your employer is not trustworthy then you should find another job. 

Indeed.

Whilst this kind of mental illness may possibly qualify as a disability (for employment law purposes) that tends to be the exception rather than the rule. It would need to be both long lasting (probably a year or more) and have a significant effect on your day to day activities.

Even if it did qualify (and ultimately that could only be decided by an employment tribunal if your employer won't agree) you would need to show that receiving a discretionary bonus, which could legitimately be withheld for lots of reasons, was a reasonable adjustment. 

Frankly, unless your employer readily agrees, you have a mountain to climb here which surely isn't going to help your condition one little bit.  

It also occurs to me that there is a significant danger in arguing that your condition has a significant day to day impact on your ability to work - that could throw into question whether you are capable of continuing in your role. People often assume that reasonable adjustments are about reducing the work / expectations on disabled employees. In fact they are about levelling the playing field to enable them to perform as well as someone without a disability. In the event someone could, say, work "adequately" but not to the same level as others, then paying them a bonus for performance that they haven't achieved would be unreasonable and unfair to others. The adjustment would need to be such that it enables you to produce the same performance as others and therefore earn the same bonus as others. 

The danger in then arguing that you can't perform as well as others is that if that level of performance is reuired and you can't meet it, the employer could consider whether you are able to continue in your role.

Undervalued

Jillanddy said:

Undervalued said:

Jillanddy said:

There is clearly no direct link between your informing them about your condition and the reduction in bonus because they had already reduced it - they merely told you that it was reducing at the same time that you chose to disclose your GAD. And the bonus is clearly discretionary, which you have always known because you have said it was. Therefore you are not being realistic when you say that you regard the payment as contractual when you clearly know it isn't. Since they must have made the decision based on performance, that is a legitimate reason for reducing a bonus - the reason why performance may have reduced is not really relevant.

You could possibly try arguing that there should be a reasonable adjustment if your condition is such that it might qualify as a disability, but there is by no means any guarantee that GAD would. And I doubt that paying a discretionary bonus to someone who is considered to not be performing well would be classed as a reasonable adjustment.

On the other hand, if you feel your employer is not trustworthy then you should find another job. 

Indeed.

Whilst this kind of mental illness may possibly qualify as a disability (for employment law purposes) that tends to be the exception rather than the rule. It would need to be both long lasting (probably a year or more) and have a significant effect on your day to day activities.

Even if it did qualify (and ultimately that could only be decided by an employment tribunal if your employer won't agree) you would need to show that receiving a discretionary bonus, which could legitimately be withheld for lots of reasons, was a reasonable adjustment. 

Frankly, unless your employer readily agrees, you have a mountain to climb here which surely isn't going to help your condition one little bit.  

It also occurs to me that there is a significant danger in arguing that your condition has a significant day to day impact on your ability to work - that could throw into question whether you are capable of continuing in your role. People often assume that reasonable adjustments are about reducing the work / expectations on disabled employees. In fact they are about levelling the playing field to enable them to perform as well as someone without a disability. In the event someone could, say, work "adequately" but not to the same level as others, then paying them a bonus for performance that they haven't achieved would be unreasonable and unfair to others. The adjustment would need to be such that it enables you to produce the same performance as others and therefore earn the same bonus as others. 

The danger in then arguing that you can't perform as well as others is that if that level of performance is reuired and you can't meet it, the employer could consider whether you are able to continue in your role.

I largely (but not entirely) agree.

A "reasonable adjustment" could be a small reduction in output, depending on all the circumstances.

Take the fictional skilled "widget maker" who becomes disabled. If he can still make 90% of the normal number of widgets to the required standard that might be a reasonable adjustment expected of a larger company. 80%? Debatable. 50%? Certainly not reasonable even in a huge organisation.

In a very small business where he is the only person with the skill to make widgets then even 90% could be a serious burden and not reasonable.

Ultimately only a tribunal can decide and no two situations are the same.

f5morg

Have a look for the wording around the bonus incentive in your contract/handbook/intranet. Sometimes it might say that you must exceed targets by a certain percentage or exact figures for example. It might also state what would disqualify you from the bonus. If there is no written info about it, then I guess it is up to them. You could still ask them to inform people about whether they get the bonus as soon as they know, so employees stay informed. Plus you could request they write up some formal terms regarding bonus criteria. They could decline however. Either way, as others have said it isnt wise to rely on bonus money as it is purely discretionary and even if youre exceeding targets they may want to direct money elsewhere.

Jillanddy

Undervalued said:

Jillanddy said:

Undervalued said:

Jillanddy said:

There is clearly no direct link between your informing them about your condition and the reduction in bonus because they had already reduced it - they merely told you that it was reducing at the same time that you chose to disclose your GAD. And the bonus is clearly discretionary, which you have always known because you have said it was. Therefore you are not being realistic when you say that you regard the payment as contractual when you clearly know it isn't. Since they must have made the decision based on performance, that is a legitimate reason for reducing a bonus - the reason why performance may have reduced is not really relevant.

You could possibly try arguing that there should be a reasonable adjustment if your condition is such that it might qualify as a disability, but there is by no means any guarantee that GAD would. And I doubt that paying a discretionary bonus to someone who is considered to not be performing well would be classed as a reasonable adjustment.

On the other hand, if you feel your employer is not trustworthy then you should find another job. 

Indeed.

Whilst this kind of mental illness may possibly qualify as a disability (for employment law purposes) that tends to be the exception rather than the rule. It would need to be both long lasting (probably a year or more) and have a significant effect on your day to day activities.

Even if it did qualify (and ultimately that could only be decided by an employment tribunal if your employer won't agree) you would need to show that receiving a discretionary bonus, which could legitimately be withheld for lots of reasons, was a reasonable adjustment. 

Frankly, unless your employer readily agrees, you have a mountain to climb here which surely isn't going to help your condition one little bit.  

It also occurs to me that there is a significant danger in arguing that your condition has a significant day to day impact on your ability to work - that could throw into question whether you are capable of continuing in your role. People often assume that reasonable adjustments are about reducing the work / expectations on disabled employees. In fact they are about levelling the playing field to enable them to perform as well as someone without a disability. In the event someone could, say, work "adequately" but not to the same level as others, then paying them a bonus for performance that they haven't achieved would be unreasonable and unfair to others. The adjustment would need to be such that it enables you to produce the same performance as others and therefore earn the same bonus as others. 

The danger in then arguing that you can't perform as well as others is that if that level of performance is reuired and you can't meet it, the employer could consider whether you are able to continue in your role.

I largely (but not entirely) agree.

A "reasonable adjustment" could be a small reduction in output, depending on all the circumstances.

Take the fictional skilled "widget maker" who becomes disabled. If he can still make 90% of the normal number of widgets to the required standard that might be a reasonable adjustment expected of a larger company. 80%? Debatable. 50%? Certainly not reasonable even in a huge organisation.

In a very small business where he is the only person with the skill to make widgets then even 90% could be a serious burden and not reasonable.

Ultimately only a tribunal can decide and no two situations are the same.

We don't disagree on that. A small reduction in performance may indeed be a reasonable adjustment to obtain the "level playing field". My point was that you can't then also expect the performance bonus attached to higher productivity. That isn't a "level playing field", it is stacking the cards against people without disabilities. The typical one that I come across from time to time is people who want to work fewer days or hours due to their disability, but then think that the employer shouldn't reduce their wages. The reasonable adjustment may certainly be to reduce your hours of work, but it definitely isn't to carry on paying you as though you are at work full time. In the same vein, you may be able to get reduced hours, but if you still can't do the work to the required standard, you may be looking at capability. Disability or ill-health isn't a free pass, and so many people think it is. And I say that as a severely disabled employee.