Junior on full duties

Dakta

There is a discrimination complaint in process, this is due to the support plan that was developed to re-introduce me to work not been followed, a false suggestion that my disability didn't exist, and the attempted removal of reasonable adjustments, however I didn't want to include it as I dont think it fundamentally changes any argument to have my role regularised. 

Perhaps the training plan might be of slight relevence as the way it's written it does 'lead up' to full analyst status, but I doubt it would change anything fundamentally. 

I will concede and quiet quit if needs be as I've self funded some professional certs and I can focus on prep for those.

Don't get me wrong, I actually like my company, the department (and the group of subdepartments) are just very badly run and they've had a lot of problems managerially in the last few years and a lot of leadership change so it's all chaos. 

MeteredOut

What are HR saying about you doing a job that is not as per your role or job description?

Dakta

I don't think they actually know as I'm still down as  my old job title, even my payslip states it -  I asked them for a copy of my updated jd/contract and they were able to give me a generic agreement of employment that I received in 2019 when I joined (it's not role specific, just covers main policies) and told me to go my manager for anything role specific.

I then asked my manager and he doesn't have a record of it and referred me to HR. 

(edited for clarity and grammar)

LinLui

There is a discrimination complaint in process, this is due to the support plan that was developed to re-introduce me to work not been followed, a false suggestion that my disability didn't exist, and the attempted removal of reasonable adjustments, however I didn't want to include it as I dont think it fundamentally changes any argument to have my role regularised. 

I am not sure whether that helps you or not, but I might wonder about adding the fact that you are doing the analyst role and not being paid for it as a discrimination claim? It isn't clear cut, but it might be enough to make them sit up and listen. Given that they moved you to that service, trained you and said that once trained you'd be paid at that level, it might be possible to construct a case of continuing discrimination from the original acts.

Undervalued

LinLui said:

There is a discrimination complaint in process, this is due to the support plan that was developed to re-introduce me to work not been followed, a false suggestion that my disability didn't exist, and the attempted removal of reasonable adjustments, however I didn't want to include it as I dont think it fundamentally changes any argument to have my role regularised. 

I am not sure whether that helps you or not, but I might wonder about adding the fact that you are doing the analyst role and not being paid for it as a discrimination claim? It isn't clear cut, but it might be enough to make them sit up and listen. Given that they moved you to that service, trained you and said that once trained you'd be paid at that level, it might be possible to construct a case of continuing discrimination from the original acts.

Far from clear cut, I would say.

An employer must make "reasonable adjustments" to try and help a disabled employee, so that they can perform effectively in the workplace. However that doesn't go anything like as far as many people fondly believe. Many "good" employers do far more in this regard than the law would actually require of them, which tends to reinforce the false impression about what is legally required.

Debating what is "reasonable" of course has kept lawyers in fat fees for generations! Ultimately only a tribunal can rule on whether the employer has done enough.

LinLui

Undervalued said:

LinLui said:

There is a discrimination complaint in process, this is due to the support plan that was developed to re-introduce me to work not been followed, a false suggestion that my disability didn't exist, and the attempted removal of reasonable adjustments, however I didn't want to include it as I dont think it fundamentally changes any argument to have my role regularised. 

I am not sure whether that helps you or not, but I might wonder about adding the fact that you are doing the analyst role and not being paid for it as a discrimination claim? It isn't clear cut, but it might be enough to make them sit up and listen. Given that they moved you to that service, trained you and said that once trained you'd be paid at that level, it might be possible to construct a case of continuing discrimination from the original acts.

Far from clear cut, I would say.

An employer must make "reasonable adjustments" to try and help a disabled employee, so that they can perform effectively in the workplace. However that doesn't go anything like as far as many people fondly believe. Many "good" employers do far more in this regard than the law would actually require of them, which tends to reinforce the false impression about what is legally required.

Debating what is "reasonable" of course has kept lawyers in fat fees for generations! Ultimately only a tribunal can rule on whether the employer has done enough.

Yes I agree. But I think it is possible to claim it as a continuing act in so far as the employer has effectively admitted there were grounds to be concerned about discriminatory practice by moving the OP, the employer chose the relocation and the role, and must have understood that they were asking someone to train in a different role but are then paying this person much less than the role is worth by their own system of evaluation. Had they chosen to move the OP to the new section but left them in a clearly junior and lower paid role that would have been different. I do see it as a stretch - but I've negotiated worse stretches successfully. Whether it holds water at a tribunal isn't the issue right now, as the point is to avoid going to one. But as the OP in in a union, they would be able to look at all the details and construct a stronger case than one based on limited information here. More often than not, negotiation is more like a game of chicken than a set of laws. Whoever blinks first loses. 

Dakta

Thanks for the comments, some interesting suggestions

Unions a bit difficult - I reached out to them but as there aren't really any unions represented in my company they said they'd get back to me and haven't. I can chase up of course

Have had some movement because my situation has been passed on to - well, the top - , and they are going to clarify the companies position with regards to me in the next few days apparently. 

They have also expressed some surprise at the ongoing discrimination, and there's going to be a conversation about this as well. 

I'm afraid it's not much of a meaningful update but lets see what happens. 

Undervalued

Dakta said:

Thanks for the comments, some interesting suggestions

Unions a bit difficult - I reached out to them but as there aren't really any unions represented in my company they said they'd get back to me and haven't. I can chase up of course

Have had some movement because my situation has been passed on to - well, the top - , and they are going to clarify the companies position with regards to me in the next few days apparently. 

They have also expressed some surprise at the ongoing discrimination, and there's going to be a conversation about this as well. 

I'm afraid it's not much of a meaningful update but lets see what happens. 

Unless you are already a member of a union it is very unlikely that they will represent a new member with an issue that started before you joined. They have some limited discretion with this but it would normally only apply if the issue was directly relevant to other members.

Do you have any legal expenses insurance, perhaps as an add on to your house insurance?

LinLui

Undervalued said:

Dakta said:

Thanks for the comments, some interesting suggestions

Unions a bit difficult - I reached out to them but as there aren't really any unions represented in my company they said they'd get back to me and haven't. I can chase up of course

Have had some movement because my situation has been passed on to - well, the top - , and they are going to clarify the companies position with regards to me in the next few days apparently. 

They have also expressed some surprise at the ongoing discrimination, and there's going to be a conversation about this as well. 

I'm afraid it's not much of a meaningful update but lets see what happens. 

Unless you are already a member of a union it is very unlikely that they will represent a new member with an issue that started before you joined. They have some limited discretion with this but it would normally only apply if the issue was directly relevant to other members.

Do you have any legal expenses insurance, perhaps as an add on to your house insurance?

^^^ This

Sorry - I thought the OP was in a union. 

OP - it does not matter whether your employer recognises a union or not. Everyone is entitled to join one. And to be represented individually by one. That is the law. Recognition is about collective bargaining, not individual representation. 

Dakta

Haha I am in a union, have been for six months

The issue is there's not really many, if anyone in a union where I work, so I'm the only one - technically it shouldn't provide a barrier to me being given advice, but when I asked them for support they said they'd have to get back to me as they don't have an agreement in place with my organisaiton.

@LinLui - that was my understanding as well, so not sure why it matters.