Easing back into work after I was off for months due to injury, is this reasonable of employer

dekaspace1

Not sure if this counts as a vent or advice.

Job is meant to be a 9-5 and has 90 minutes of breaks per day, to ease me back in they have given me a 6 and a half hour shift, with just 15 minutes of break and means I cover the lunch period which is the busiest part of day and first thing in morning and I don't work the part of day which is basically dead anyway.

So in other words I am going almost 5 hours with zero breaks though I am "allowed" unofficial breaks they are logged on system and can be brought up at meetings..

In fact this week half the team went into a 90 minute meeting Monday, and the other half Tuesday meaning each day the other half did more work but as I am WFH I am except from meetings so again doing more work than usual.

5 hours without breaks and working the whole 2 hours at lunch is far more stressful than working a normal 8 hour shift with 90 minutes of breaks during the day

It does seem to be from higher up as it seems they class this as "part time" rather than full time shift.

It just doesn't seem right to me to do more work than less when easing me back in so this may be a vent just wanted feedback.

Undervalued

dekaspace1 said:

Not sure if this counts as a vent or advice.

Job is meant to be a 9-5 and has 90 minutes of breaks per day, to ease me back in they have given me a 6 and a half hour shift, with just 15 minutes of break and means I cover the lunch period which is the busiest part of day and first thing in morning and I don't work the part of day which is basically dead anyway.

So in other words I am going almost 5 hours with zero breaks though I am "allowed" unofficial breaks they are logged on system and can be brought up at meetings..

In fact this week half the team went into a 90 minute meeting Monday, and the other half Tuesday meaning each day the other half did more work but as I am WFH I am except from meetings so again doing more work than usual.

5 hours without breaks and working the whole 2 hours at lunch is far more stressful than working a normal 8 hour shift with 90 minutes of breaks during the day

It does seem to be from higher up as it seems they class this as "part time" rather than full time shift.

It just doesn't seem right to me to do more work than less when easing me back in so this may be a vent just wanted feedback.

Except possibly as a "reasonable adjustment" for a disability there is no legal right to a special arrangement to "ease you back in" after and illness or injury. The employer is entitled to say, in effect, "do your normal job or stay off sick until you can". You also have that option if what they are offering doesn't help.

Marcon

dekaspace1 said:

Not sure if this counts as a vent or advice.

Job is meant to be a 9-5 and has 90 minutes of breaks per day, to ease me back in they have given me a 6 and a half hour shift, with just 15 minutes of break and means I cover the lunch period which is the busiest part of day and first thing in morning and I don't work the part of day which is basically dead anyway.

So in other words I am going almost 5 hours with zero breaks though I am "allowed" unofficial breaks they are logged on system and can be brought up at meetings..

In fact this week half the team went into a 90 minute meeting Monday, and the other half Tuesday meaning each day the other half did more work but as I am WFH I am except from meetings so again doing more work than usual.

5 hours without breaks and working the whole 2 hours at lunch is far more stressful than working a normal 8 hour shift with 90 minutes of breaks during the day

It does seem to be from higher up as it seems they class this as "part time" rather than full time shift.

It just doesn't seem right to me to do more work than less when easing me back in so this may be a vent just wanted feedback.

Feedback here isn't going to accomplish anything - it can't have any impact on your physical ability to do the job. 

Why not talk to your employer? If something doesn't feel right, that's the only way to try and improve something which is bothering you. 

LinLui

Unfortunately I have to agree with @Undervalued - you have the choice of remaining off sick. Even with a disability (and you haven't suggested this is the case) "reasonable adjustments" don't have to be all that "reasonable" - reasonable is in the eye of the beholder. It also sounds like you are working from home when others are in the office - is that part of the adjustment for you?

If you are working 6.5 hours, then your break should be 20 minutes (by law).

born_again

In many ways it can depend on just what the injury was & what exactly you are doing.

You say you are WFH, so is that sat at a computer or doing something like phone support for 6 hours?

LinLui

dekaspace1 said:

Not sure if this counts as a vent or advice.

Job is meant to be a 9-5 and has 90 minutes of breaks per day, to ease me back in they have given me a 6 and a half hour shift, with just 15 minutes of break and means I cover the lunch period which is the busiest part of day and first thing in morning and I don't work the part of day which is basically dead anyway.

So in other words I am going almost 5 hours with zero breaks though I am "allowed" unofficial breaks they are logged on system and can be brought up at meetings..

In fact this week half the team went into a 90 minute meeting Monday, and the other half Tuesday meaning each day the other half did more work but as I am WFH I am except from meetings so again doing more work than usual.

5 hours without breaks and working the whole 2 hours at lunch is far more stressful than working a normal 8 hour shift with 90 minutes of breaks during the day

It does seem to be from higher up as it seems they class this as "part time" rather than full time shift.

It just doesn't seem right to me to do more work than less when easing me back in so this may be a vent just wanted feedback.

Looking at your last thread on this subject, you are part-time! You normally work 35 hours over two weeks - 2 or 3 days a week. "Full time" doesn't equate to the number of hours in a shift. Bearing in mind that you average 17.5 hours per week I think that the employer is being exceedingly generous in reducing your hours at all. So if you find working your contractual hours less stressful then you can ask the employer to go back to them. 

dekaspace1

LinLui said:

dekaspace1 said:

Not sure if this counts as a vent or advice.

Job is meant to be a 9-5 and has 90 minutes of breaks per day, to ease me back in they have given me a 6 and a half hour shift, with just 15 minutes of break and means I cover the lunch period which is the busiest part of day and first thing in morning and I don't work the part of day which is basically dead anyway.

So in other words I am going almost 5 hours with zero breaks though I am "allowed" unofficial breaks they are logged on system and can be brought up at meetings..

In fact this week half the team went into a 90 minute meeting Monday, and the other half Tuesday meaning each day the other half did more work but as I am WFH I am except from meetings so again doing more work than usual.

5 hours without breaks and working the whole 2 hours at lunch is far more stressful than working a normal 8 hour shift with 90 minutes of breaks during the day

It does seem to be from higher up as it seems they class this as "part time" rather than full time shift.

It just doesn't seem right to me to do more work than less when easing me back in so this may be a vent just wanted feedback.

Looking at your last thread on this subject, you are part-time! You normally work 35 hours over two weeks - 2 or 3 days a week. "Full time" doesn't equate to the number of hours in a shift. Bearing in mind that you average 17.5 hours per week I think that the employer is being exceedingly generous in reducing your hours at all. So if you find working your contractual hours less stressful then you can ask the employer to go back to them. 

Part time as in on the day I meant, I did think someone might mention that but in the reason some part time staff work say 4 hours a day, a full day is 8 hours, someone doing 4 hours would be a part time or part day staff so wouldn't get a lunch break, a 8 hours staff member gets a lunch break.

I'd actually prefer to work the full shift as it would work out due to breaks only doing 15 minutes more work a day plus getting a hour at lunch to relax and less busy times of day working.

born_again said:

In many ways it can depend on just what the injury was & what exactly you are doing.

You say you are WFH, so is that sat at a computer or doing something like phone support for 6 hours?

Broken leg, which I still need a crutch to walk around with physio report they asked for says 10 minute break per hour to rest leg/walk around and its customer service so I get swamped with calls.Undervalued said:

dekaspace1 said:

Not sure if this counts as a vent or advice.

Job is meant to be a 9-5 and has 90 minutes of breaks per day, to ease me back in they have given me a 6 and a half hour shift, with just 15 minutes of break and means I cover the lunch period which is the busiest part of day and first thing in morning and I don't work the part of day which is basically dead anyway.

So in other words I am going almost 5 hours with zero breaks though I am "allowed" unofficial breaks they are logged on system and can be brought up at meetings..

In fact this week half the team went into a 90 minute meeting Monday, and the other half Tuesday meaning each day the other half did more work but as I am WFH I am except from meetings so again doing more work than usual.

5 hours without breaks and working the whole 2 hours at lunch is far more stressful than working a normal 8 hour shift with 90 minutes of breaks during the day

It does seem to be from higher up as it seems they class this as "part time" rather than full time shift.

It just doesn't seem right to me to do more work than less when easing me back in so this may be a vent just wanted feedback.

Except possibly as a "reasonable adjustment" for a disability there is no legal right to a special arrangement to "ease you back in" after and illness or injury. The employer is entitled to say, in effect, "do your normal job or stay off sick until you can". You also have that option if what they are offering doesn't help.

Officially I was signed off until the end of this month but employer felt that as I WFH and its computer based I can do the job plus told me official policy due to amount of time off means my file is passed to higher ups and they will discuss if I have had too much time off if so I would be laid off (regardless of being signed off) So I went back to work 2 weeks ago, I can wake up at the correct times etc and knew I had to go back eventually so I just dealt with it.

LinLui

I think you are failing to understand certain aspects here. If you have a lot of time off sick, whoever you are and whatever you do, then there are often sickness absence processes which will lead to your ultimate dismissal. That is for everyone. If you have worked there less than two years, you have even less protection against dismissal. 

If you were signed off and have a fit note then your employer cannot require you to return to work before that expires. Yes, there may be consequences if you are off too much, but that is entirely different.

You can speak to your physio about desk bound rests / exercises. There are plenty of alternatives that don't require 10 minutes every hour break away from your desk /work. You are only working a small number of hours and a small number of days - then expecting an hour for lunch and 10 minutes break every hour is unreasonable. 

If you would prefer to return to your contractual hours, as I said previously, you just have to say so. You are entitled to return to them any time you want. 

dekaspace1

No, I should be clear I am not taking the hourly 10 minute breaks due to the worry about it being flagged as taking too many, i'd rather have an official long break for multiple reasons. At most I want to maybe once a hour stand up and stretch my legs which should take a minute or two at most.

I have worked there 5 years.

LinLui

dekaspace1 said:

No, I should be clear I am not taking the hourly 10 minute breaks due to the worry about it being flagged as taking too many, i'd rather have an official long break for multiple reasons. At most I want to maybe once a hour stand up and stretch my legs which should take a minute or two at most.

I have worked there 5 years.

But as I said, if you speak to the physio then they can advise on things you can do - it doesn't have to be a case of not exercising your leg because you can't take a break away from your work. I've been there. I still am, for me it is a permanent feature of life. There are alternatives.

As for "multiple reasons" - yes, I suspected as much from your last thread on this. But you didn't provide any "multiple reasons", so people can only address what you are saying here. And on the limited information you are providing the employer is being reasonable, but if you prefer your "full-time" working pattern you can ask to be put back on that now. 

But I get the impression - and happy for you to correct me if I am wrong - that this is not about a broken leg, phased return, or your current hours. Is it? People can only help you if you explain the whole "multiple reasons", because I am not certain that returning to your "full-time" hours is what you want either.

dekaspace1

Multiple reasons is mostly stress and pattern related, yes I am fragile mentally right now but I have been for years.

I'd rather have one long break especially if it means its at the busy time of day than start later get no break and work through the busiest part of day.

Plus that hours break means I can go for a walk outside, fresh air and do my daily main exercise etc.

It was actually a works physio that requested the 10 minutes break per hour not a NHS one, I thought a 5 minute break would be more than enough every 90 minutes.