To think a company can't demote you after stress leave?

[GreenHeritier]

Hi all, posting here for traffic and have NCed to protect friend's anonymity.

A close friend of mine has been on stress leave for 5 months following a burnout. Her role was a high-pressure, high-responsibility managerial role running a large team. She is now feeling better and had a few conversations with HR about returning to work.

She has requested that they make some tweaks to her role so she can avoid stressful, high-pressure responsibilities like dealing with well-known difficult people or particularly stressful projects.

HR has now said that they can't accommodate her request and that they therefore don't think she is fit to take her original role back as she can't perform the duties the role requires. They have offered her a smaller, low-responsibility role with no managerial duties, but with the same salary as before.

AIBU I think what they are doing is illegal and she should speak to a lawyer?

Basically the firm has the choice between having two people carrying out the managerial role between them, with your friend doing the "nice" bits whilst someone else has the bad cop role; or carrying on with one person doing the normal managerial role all by themselves. You can see why it's a no-brainer, can't you?

"She would go from leading a large team, with people management responsibilities and working on a lot of high-profile strategic stuff, to a project manager role working on optimizing processes within the same team she used to lead."

AND get paid the same. That's very generous in my view.

Putting aside the fact that what the company is offering is completely reasonable, I think it’s worth your friend exploring whether this type of role is right for her anyways.

For example is it that she finds managing people stressful - or is it managing the people in her specific team? Could she do the job elsewhere but is finding her specific company difficult?

If it’s not specific to her organisation she really does need to rethink whether this type of role is right for her.

Jobs which involve management of people - whether staff or stakeholders can be stressful if you find that a difficult thing to do.

The issue for me here is she has admitted she cannot go back to doing the job as it needs to be done. It sounds like this is permanent rather than of short duration that a phased return to work could normally overcome.

You say she asked for 'tweaks' but not managing certain projects or difficult people does not sound like tweaks to me, that sounds like larger changes. With my HR hat on, even if we said she could avoid Bob and Jill, who's to say that another Bob or Jill won't pop up in another area of her role and then she can't cope with them?

The harsh reality is she wants a high flying, highly paid career with little to no stress and that doesn't exist.

We really can't make a judgement call about whether HR are being fair or not without more knowledge of the context. It could be that the company has a poor culture, the workload or expectations are unreasonable and anyone in that role would burnout. Or it could equally be that OP's friend is anxious and unsuited to that kind of role. We can't possibly know.

But it does sound like HR know the law pretty well and I can't see OP's friend has a leg to stand on in legal terms. She accepts it or looks for another job...

Yabu they are being more than fair. She gets the same money for less work. She said she cannot even do her current job so I thought you were going to say they fired her.

She isn't going to progress in the company anyway if she cannot even do her current role.

If she needed five months of for stress, maybe her previous role wasn’t right for her. Whether, she wasn’t suited for the job, or has @paralysedbyinertia said,the organisation wasn’t set up well, so there was too much expectation in her. What was causing the stress? Too much work? Not being able manage x and y? Not being given the tools to do the job (ie, understaffed, not having equipment, etc)

However, if the temporary cover has been doing the job successfully, this may not be the case.

If the friend wanted to do the nice bit if the job slowly, and return to full power eventually, fair enough. Ie. Phased return. However, you imply that she wanted a reduced role permanently.

Maybe her best option would be to look around for a new job where she can continue her high flying career. A fresh start in a new company.

Yes this seems yet again another searching for discrimination where none exists. The modern world of professional victimisation. The offer from the company seems brilliant with no reduction in pay for a less challenging role they should take it. It is more than what the company had to do and effectively they were unable to do the role they were hired to do.

I’m not a HR person but If her stress was caused by her job then the organisation surely has a duty of care towards her and can’t put her back in the role (even if reduced) that caused the stress in the first place. It would be tantamount to negligence for them to do so. It doesn’t think the adjustments are reasonable and has offered an alternative post at the same salary. I think she’s been quite lucky and if this isn’t what she wants it at least gives her breathing space to find another job.

Ask someone in the 'legal' topic. You'd need a qualified lawyer to tell you where you're friend legally stands.

She’s lucky. She gets the benefit even though she can’t do the job. Too many people like her around destroying British workplaces - overpromoted incompetents who can’t be sacked filling jobs that would be better performed by others but who can’t be promoted as the position is filled. And on top of this instead of being hugely grateful she’s actually got the bare faced cheek to feel hard done by!

@Guavaf1sh

She’s lucky. She gets the benefit even though she can’t do the job. Too many people like her around destroying British workplaces - overpromoted incompetents who can’t be sacked filling jobs that would be better performed by others but who can’t be promoted as the position is filled. And on top of this instead of being hugely grateful she’s actually got the bare faced cheek to feel hard done by!

Maybe jobs shouldn't be so bloody stressful and expect so much of people that they are having to take months off work to recuperate. People aren't incompetent, they're bloody overworked. It isn't normal to worry about work 24/7, it isn't normal for people to be so stressed they cry but in several of my work places that has been the norm and nothing ever changes.

A company can do whatever they want. Whether an employee decides to challenge this by taking to a Tribunal is another thing.

There is a job to be done. The company may be under an obligation to make reasonable adjustments (subject to your friend having a disability which is unclear).

Sounds like they are going over and above. Ultimately if it’s not the right job for her I suggest she resigns and finds a new role.

Thank you all for your comments. I was clearly off base with my initial assumptions. I will relay the points I read on this thread to my friend.

To answer some previous questions:

1. friend identified three main issues that led her to burnout: her excessive workload, some colleagues' toxic personalities, and her own perfectionist tendency. She is committed to addressing issue #3.

2. friend had been in her role for 2 years, through which she was consistently really stressed about work given the issues mentioned above.

3. someone mentioned the possibility of friend taking the smaller job temporarily with a view of getting her old role back. That is not possible as they would give her job to someone else in the meantime as the team needs to be managed.

I'm surprised your friend thinks this offer is not acceptable. You state people management was part of her role and yet she would like to have her cake and eat it. Why does she not understand the company are fulfilling their legal obligations to her but their priority is business. She has asked for her job to be adjusted to avoid future burnout but the stressful aspects are part of the job description; she has admitted she is not able to meet the requirements of the role she is employed to do. Does she really think rewriting the job description is a reasonable request?

If some aspects of her previous role were delegated to lower paid members of her team because she's not able to cope with them does she think she will still command the same level of respect? I can't see how that would be less humiliating than taking a role with less responsibility for the same money.

I'm glad your friend is feeling better but her response to this generous offer suggests to me she is not really ready for the level of management responsibility she had previously. I can understand why she is concerned about redundancy but they are offering her a low pressure role for the same pay which will hopefully give her the energy and opportunity to look for something else before redundancy becomes an issue.

1) friend identified three main issues that led her to burnout: her excessive workload, some colleagues' toxic personalities, and her own perfectionist tendency. She is committed to addressing issue #3.

But surely she can see that there are limits to what the company can do to address #1 and 2. If the projects are time critical there will always be stress in running them and she cannot expect them to choose a team to suit her sensibilities. Is the workload excessive on her eyes or do others share her view? It just sounds as if she is not cut out for such a senior role unless she can develop better coping strategies. Has OH assessed her?

What exactly do you see as the grounds for her claim?

Even if her condition is such that she would be protected by the Equality Act (and not clear from your OP whether she would be but let's just assume she is) .... I think her employers have made REASONABLE adjustments to allow her to continue to work with less pressure and on the same money. They would argue in court that it would be UNREASONABLE to let her keep the same role and remove the difficult people and difficult responsibilities. It would no longer be the same role anyway and they would need to put another person in a similar role to do the bits she can't do at the moment.

I'm struggling to understand what grounds you think she has for legal action, other than the above which I think is unlikely to be successful.

It sounds very reasonable to me.

She has requested that they make some tweaks to her role so she can avoid stressful, high-pressure responsibilities like dealing with well-known difficult people or particularly stressful projects.

No offence intended, but these responsibilities are part and parcel of being a manager. It’s what sets apart a manager from a junior member of the team, the ability to navigate difficult situations and produce results. Refusing to work with certain difficult people is unprofessional - as a manager she should find another way to build rapport and not allow this to impact the business etc.

It’s therefore not guaranteed that an employment tribunal would find her requests as reasonable, as it fundamentally changes the scope of her role. To the contrary, I think a tribunal would see the employer as being reasonable.

@GreenHeritier

Thank you all for your comments. I was clearly off base with my initial assumptions. I will relay the points I read on this thread to my friend.

To answer some previous questions:

1. friend identified three main issues that led her to burnout: her excessive workload, some colleagues' toxic personalities, and her own perfectionist tendency. She is committed to addressing issue #3.

2. friend had been in her role for 2 years, through which she was consistently really stressed about work given the issues mentioned above.

3. someone mentioned the possibility of friend taking the smaller job temporarily with a view of getting her old role back. That is not possible as they would give her job to someone else in the meantime as the team needs to be managed.

point 1) the caseload they can address, for example is it real or perceived? In my 40+ years of working there have always been toxic people in the workplace, if she wants to progress she cant avoid them. Her own perfectionist tendencies are not easy to work on, it takes effort and is probably why she cannot see the good offer she has received, being hung up on the job title.

point 2) If she was consistently stressed for 2 years is this because she is actually out of her depth? 5 month sick from 2 years work suggests it is. I have watched many people take a job they cannot actually do because they want the money or status.

point3) Would she want the old role back given she continually struggled. What if she failed again? She has a great job offer that can offer more work life balance. She could start working on her perfectionist tendencies by accepting that this is a win win situation.

Was her mental health generally good before this?

I did post way back at the beginning of the thread but just thought I'd add (in addition to the emphasis that it sounds like the company have been more than reasonable)... Maybe your friend would benefit from reflecting that there is no shame in not being well-suited to high pressure roles... Not everyone is!! I have a medium amount of responsibility (supervise others, make decisions re patient care etc). I'm actually still at a lower banding compared to a lot of people who qualified at the same time as I did but have no desire to add extra pressure or responsibility to my role as I know I'm not the type of person who would handle that well and likely burn out as a result. That doesn't make me any less worthy or valuable as someone working at a higher level. Your friend can still do her job well but at the level of pressure that suits her better, plus on the higher level of pay... Win win!!

1 and 2 are points an employer MAY be able to address but issues with workload and colleagues are somewhat subjective. Is the workload genuinely and unreasonably excessive and are the colleagues genuinely toxic or are both within normal parameters that someone in a senior management role would be expected to deal with? We don’t know the answers to that.

It’s by no means guaranteed that she’d be able to demonstrate she was a disabled person under the Equality Act and even if she was the company may be well placed to defend any claims that may arise.

Which leaves her with not much basis for a claim really. If they forced this change on her without agreement perhaps claims for breach of contract/constructive dismissal (although the latter would mean she had to resign and no guarantee she’d succeed in those claims either) but presumably this is not being forced on her, she’s been offered it? Would she still be able to have the original job back if she wanted?

I think your friend has little basis for a claim.

I think the key question though is whether the work load was excessive or just your friend was unable to cope with it. With a perfectionist personality it may just not be the right job for her.

I feel sorry for the employer. They seem to be doing their best to accommodate this person, who seems to be an entitled, ungrateful and unreasonable person.