Work/Occupational Health/HR

What is it you do for work ??

Ewb10 said:

Hi all,

Having been quite unwell and absent from work I was referred to OH for support.

They advised a phased return and a follow up call with a doctor, however, the doctor advised if they say I am unable to do the role they have so many weeks a
to find me a new role and if they can't I will lose my job.

Has anybody had any experience of this and can help or advice me please?

Thank you

Click to expand...

You don't provide enough information to make any personal comments, but essentially, if reasonable adjustments can't be made to the role you currently undertake, or no alternative role can be found, then your employer can manage you out. They will have a process for this.

Whilst that sounds quite harsh; looking at it from the employer's standpoint, it could be that an individual can no longer fulfil their role, due to a diabetes diagnosis (I would say that would be almost exclusively T1, but that's my "best guess"), then it seems unreasonable that person would have to remain on the payroll ad infinitum, and potentially creating a financial/safety burden to the employer. In such a circumstance. an employer could go bust because of the need to support someone with an unforeseen condition.

Hopefully, none of this will come to fruition for you, ans either you will become well enough or your employer is able to accommodate your skills elsewhere in his business. It's a toughie.

All depends what it is you do.

It is very, very hard to 'manage you out'. You certainly don't need to look at the employers standpoint, you need to look at The Equality Act 2010 which gives you statutory protection.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents

First they need to think harder how to accommodate your needs,

@Ewb10 I've worked for a similar type of business for ten years. I've observed that generally they've been very good with long term sickness.

Sorry to disagree with an above poster but any firm can let you go on capability grounds, they do have to go thru a process and there is a certain minimum standard they have to follow, (but some firms have better systems in place than others)...........as I found out myself the other month.........

I have been (was) a union rep for 20 years and have seen it a few times.........


Personally I had no problem with my employer doing this as it was a clear case of me being unable to do my job (T2) as a PCV driver......

However be very careful in what you say to them , make it very clear this is just a blip and that you intend to return to normal work at some point, this makes it very difficult for them to let you go............

I agree with mfactor, although as a diabetic you are afforded certain rights and employers can make "reasonable adjustments", it doesn't guarantee you a job for life. Part of the reasonable adjustment discussion puts some onus on the employee to effectively manage their diabetes.
It can be argued a well managed diabetic shouldn't really need much more time off than a non-diabetic or other special treatment.
I know occasionally no matter how hard we try things can go wrong but it's still our responsibility to try to ensure we remain effective employees whilst still enjoying a measure of protection from the Equality Act.

SunnyExpat said:

It is very, very hard to 'manage you out'. You certainly don't need to look at the employers standpoint, you need to look at The Equality Act 2010 which gives you statutory protection.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents

First they need to think harder how to accommodate your needs,

Click to expand...

If someone can be accommodated, then I agree a managing out can't just be done on a whim, but if the individual holds a pivotal role within a form, or is mainly skilled in something incompatible with taking insulin, and all that can entail, then they can be managed out. Of course, there would have to be an adequate demonstration of attempts to accommodate the individual, but it is possible.

No employer/business owner would be expected to compromise the viability of his business in favour of a single employee.

I don't envy either side in these circumstances.

AndBreathe said:

If someone can be accommodated, then I agree a managing out can't just be done on a whim, but if the individual holds a pivotal role within a form, or is mainly skilled in something incompatible with taking insulin, and all that can entail, then they can be managed out. Of course, there would have to be an adequate demonstration of attempts to accommodate the individual, but it is possible.

No employer/business owner would be expected to compromise the viability of his business in favour of a single employee.

I don't envy either side in these circumstances.

Click to expand...

Fortunately for employees, compliance to the legislation isn't optional.

SunnyExpat said:

Fortunately for employees, compliance to the legislation isn't optional.

Click to expand...

Tell that to a train driver....

SunnyExpat said:

Fortunately for employees, compliance to the legislation isn't optional.

Click to expand...

Correct..... then it goes pear shaped lol.....................as the term "reasonable adjustments" is open to interpretation............



My case was easy ...

1) I drove a bus, ,,,,

2) was I well enough to drive a bus = no

3) was there another job I could do = no

4) Bye Bye


I took a workmate in a few years earlier who had been off with a bad back, now at that time we had two sorts of buses , old boneshakers that killed his back and new ones with air suspension that he was fine with.....

So HR suggested he only drive the one type, local manager said no way as it was simply too difficult to ensure he only was rota'd a certain type (and to be fair he was correct it would have been a nightmare)....so that would come under unreasonable adjustments..............

But they did agree to help him mutually swap with other drivers, which was a reasonable
adjustment............


If he had refused the second option they then, quite legally could have said that they had offered a
reasonable adjustment and dismissed him under capability......

Would it be fair to assume you had a license restriction imposed by the dvla, removing your right to drive that vehicle?

SunnyExpat said:

Would it be fair to assume you had a license restriction imposed by the dvla, removing your right to drive that vehicle?

Click to expand...

Nope , went to the doctor with High BS spikes , causing me to feel foggy, fatigued and as a work mate put it "away with the fairies" on one occasion...

Thought she would inform DVLA but surprisingly told me that it was lows they really worried about, I guess also that my "hypers" did not come on that fast so had time to go off sick/take a break etc..........


Work were pretty good 9 months on full pay then a lump sum to say goodbye, but I was honest with them and told them that i did not feel well enough to drive on regular occasions ......

SunnyExpat said:

Fortunately for employees, compliance to the legislation isn't optional.

Click to expand...

I completely agree with you. Nobody should be victimised because of a medical condition - neither employee nor employer. I totally sympathise with anyone finding themselves wound up in any of this, as it's a rotten situation for both sides.

AndBreathe said:

I completely agree with you. Nobody should be victimised because of a medical condition - neither employee nor employer. I totally sympathise with anyone finding themselves wound up in any of this, as it's a rotten situation for both sides.

Click to expand...

Indeed it is, and sadly all too common in a age where we should be more understanding.

AndBreathe said:

I completely agree with you. Nobody should be victimised because of a medical condition - neither employee nor employer. I totally sympathise with anyone finding themselves wound up in any of this, as it's a rotten situation for both sides.

Click to expand...

The law doesn't seem to agree though.
Possibly employees have been victimised in the past, hence the legislation for their protection now.

noblehead said:

Indeed it is, and sadly all too common in a age where we should be more understanding.

Click to expand...

I completely agree with you Noblehead, but not all circumstances can be accommodated, and there comes a point when it is possible more employees' livelihoods would be at risk, if absolute and ultimate "protection" were in place.

Don't forget, in many circumstances the employer will be upset to lose a decent employee.

I have had to manage people out of businesses in the past (not for diabetes, I might add). I have also been forced to spend thousands of pounds on desk and chair adjustments for (in the the case I have in my mind's eye currently) who felt the DIY work he was undertaking on his home was more important than being a fully functioning employee in a specialised business.

I have also, at the requirement of Occupational Health, been directed to fund a knee reconstruction for an employee who had been instructed by a specialist to desist from participation in contact sports, pending treatment, but the guy went on to wreck his leg, in a big way. As it transpired, the directive was made on the basis it was cheaper to pay for the surgery than pay his salary during his time off sick, awaiting surgery on the NHS. That person was based in a 10 story building and could not be allowed to work, in the building, on crutches, due to an evacuation risk, should an emergency arise.

That last one took some selling to another employee waiting for something equally needed, but where she was able to attend the office.

It is also sadly true that sometimes circumstances play into the hands of an employer who would like to ease someone out.

AndBreathe said:

.....................It is also sadly true that sometimes circumstances play into the hands of an employer who would like to ease someone out.

Click to expand...

I agree.
An owerpowering reason for the 2010 Act being brought in.