Why have HR asked me this and can I say no?

[Hrrrrhr]

I started some medication recently. A side effect is drowsiness and on those occasions not driving. It’s supposed to settle over 8 weeks. I’ve therefore asked my employer whether I can work from home during this time. My job can completely be done from home and often is. I’ve been there a long time. They’re asking me if they can contact my gp and ask my gp a number of questions instead of going through occupational health as occupational health can take much longer (ie beyond the time I’m asking for to have the adjustment anyway). I’m not comfortable having direct questions sent to my gp as I’ve never heard of this before. I would prefer occupational health. Can anyone explain my rights? Thank you

Maybe the employer thinks it's a bit of an unreasonable request? Maybe you shouldn't drive, but lots of people who don't have driving licences manage to get to work every day?
I can't imagine the GP will suggest the medicine would render you unsafe to leave the house for 8 weeks. If you want back up about that then you should probably refuse as I doubt they'll corroborate it.

My doctor did.

Also depends on the medication. The one a I take and the reasons for it fall under the disability act. I wouldn’t class myself as disabled. I did end up with a meeting with occupational health though but that was because they take health and mental health seriously.

An alternative to not coming to work might be if your employer agrees to fund a taxi (if you don't live that far away and public transport isn't feasible?) Of course they are under no obligation to but it will likely be less expensive for them than paying sick pay.

i do agree that saying you are too drowsy to attend the office, but not drowsy enough to be unable to work sounds a bit dodge. If you can't drive, have you even looked at other ways of getting to work? I would do that first, and if not ask for the taxi option. If this is all genuine of course and not just an excuse to doss from home for a few weeks.

Pretty sure it gives the same warning on ibuprofen

I work at a GP surgery, I wonder if a patient summary would be enough. If a patient comes in with photo ID we can print a summary which show your last 3 appointments and your medications, you could then redact info you don't want them to see.

It's not fine to drive on medications that list drowsiness or other side effects like those associated with muscle relaxants.

Of course it is. Or do you really think everyone with hayfever gives up driving every time they need to take an antihistamine?

There's a difference between "do not drive" and "this medication may cause drowsiness - if you experience this side effect then don't drive".

Surely it would be cheaper to pay sick pay? Otherwise they're paying OP's full time wage plus two taxi fares every single day.

Depends if she's in the kind of role that needs to be covered. A lot of jobs you can't just take someone out and expect the same output by loading it onto others.

You're lucky then, GPs have been under pressure over long term sick notes for a while now.

But like you say, it would depend on the meds/side effects. If it's a low dose anti-depressant and you work on an office, you're unlikely to be written off for 8 weeks based on side effects alone. If it's a high dose of muscle relaxers or opiates and you operate heavy machinery, you likely will.

I work in HR, it's incredibly common to ask for a report direct from the GP rather than OH. It's significantly cheaper and often faster. You have the right to access the report before it's sent to your employer, and it's no more intrusive than going through OH.

@IDontHateRainbows true, but I suspect many employers wouldn't bother to find cover for such a short period.

So the employer may decide paying for a taxi is worth it to avoid loss of output over 8 weeks. Or they may decide just to lump it onto colleagues and take the hit/ leave it to pile up for OPs return.

Entirely depends on the nature of the work, the cost of taxis and the attitude of the employer!

Looks like employer is being proactive. Trying to help you, they want to comply & do the right thing without making you wait.

It’s likely they need to consider whatever their policy is around WFH, consider perhaps cost of taxi or other transport. Maybe even a concern about your wellbeing and ability to make decisions/work if you are compromised.

Suggest you talk to them and ask about the process do they can explain to you are certain your HR knows more than MN.

HR bod here. ...Occupational health where I last work took months to turn a referral round. Something relatively simple, we'd go to the GP.

Here's an idea, HR bod. Why not flag to the business you're serving that their occupational health process and/or supplier isn't meeting operational needs, and it needs to be urgently sorted?

The fact that you needed this workaround suggests that the HR policy you had in place, isn't effective.

Fix that. Don't start invading your employees' medical records to work around shite operational planning and supplier management.

Yes you can say no, but that's the same as refusing to go to Occupational health. You'll look obstinate

It's not the same at all. not even close.

it doesn't surprise me that someone in HR would say that.

Guessing if you're too doped up to drive your employer is not going to agree with you "wfh" if you'll be off on a power nap every half hour!
Have a coffee, find the bus timetable and off you crack, OP.

I would check that your GP even offers this service as some charge for this and who will pay the bill. Can you speak to your GP and get a fit note to cover the period?

is there any way for you to use public transport for important meetings etc?

I agree it’s invasive and they should go down occ health route

It's not necessarily needing a nap
You could be fine to work
If anyone has ever had amitryptiline or morphine or even night nurse, you wouldn't want to be behind the wheel of a car but you're capable of working (depending on the job and presuming it's not life or death)

On days when I've taken 8 dihydrocodeine and some oramorph I don't want to be driving

I take amitryptilene. I have never been drowsy from it, and have never needed to stop driving as a result. The advice is IF it causes you to be drowsy, do not drive (implied to be "don't drive when drowsy"). Honestly, medication isn't the issue - nobody should be driving (or operating machinery) whilst drowsy from any cause at all. But if someone is that drowsy then they may also not be fit for work.

In the end, all the too-ing and fro-ing about who is HR, who is OH, and what anyones elses workplace does is irrelevant. The OP's employer has offered an alternative to waiting for weeks for their OH and the OP's GP to deal with it - how long that takes is a piece of string only applicable to this one workplace. The OP is entitled to refuse the employers request. The OP can limit what the GP is allowed to say; and / or they can read the report before it goes to the employer. Or ther OP can wait and see when or if the medication has this effect and go off sick on those days. Or the OP can get on a bus or a train because driving to work is not the only option. But getting to work is the employees responsibility. Those are the employees options.

The employers options are to let them work from home, or not allow it and insist that any time the OP is unfit to attend work then they will be classed as sick. They do not have to do anything else. So if I wanted te employer to paly ball then I would be looking to find a compromise that they are happy with - or suck up the consequences of not agreeing.

This is not about what is "fair" (a much overused word - life isn't fair). It is about who holds the cards. In this case it is the employer. A reasonable employer might compromise - so they might, for example, say that if the employees doctor can confirm the actual potential for being unable to drive etc sooner rather than later, then they could look at making it work. Or you can dig your heels in, say you'll agree to an OH appointment and be off sick - or catch the bus - until that report is done.

The employer would cover it.

It's not any more invasive than Occupational Health, who will be requesting the exact same information from the GP and presenting it to the employer as part of their report.

You have asked for a significant adjustment to your working conditions based on the fact that you have told them about this medication.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me that they need confirmation that you are fit to work given your condition, and fit to work given the medication.

What if it skews your cognitive ability to the extent that you made a serious error? They would bear responsibility for that!

OP, I would say you are happy with this IF they tell you what questions will be asked. And give permission for your GP to answer those questions.

They aren’t going to ask for a copy of your entire medical history to keep on file.

Do you really need to WFH? What if it doesn’t make you drowsy? I never get any of the side effects that ‘may’ be a result of medication.

Seeing as Occupational health commonly speak to the GP to get the information to pass back to the employer, it's exactly the same.

Anyway OP clearly wants a dossy time at home for a few weeks and that's what everyone, HR, manager, the CEO will be thinking even if it's unsaid. It wouldn't wash with me.

The OP said has started and is having side effects.

And never underestimate stupid or blindly trust that a HR bod would not ask for more access than needed.

Re-reading Orig Post … the new medication … no driving, is expected to “settle” (whatever that means) in 8 weeks.

The big question is - what if it doesn’t “settle” in 8 weeks … how does employer handle that situation if it’s a long term essential medication and employee cannot no longer get to work location.

Thinking if I was HR …. I would be thinking of long term implications if an employee cannot get to work for years. And, they don’t want to have a work from home forever for whatever business reason. It can also be situation that others have asked for WFH, or can’t travel and agreeing this would create “unfairness” for others.
The 8 weeks, is not like a wound healing or a recovery period. It sounds like it can be indefinite.

I’m with HR on this, they need to understand situation before agreeing to something that could indefinite.

If it's anything like I was on a medication, I spent 8 weeks feeling like I was stoned, went back the GP and said absolutely not, I can't cope like this
They said to me it can take 8 weeks to settle but I was done, all I wanted to do was sleep

@Hrrrrhr This poster is right. Your logic is flawed here. If the medication makes you sleepy so you can't drive, then surely you wouldn't be able to work without sleeping during the times you are supposed to be WFH?

Many, many medications (including iboprufen) give warnings that the medication may make you drowsy and if you are affected you shouldn't drive or handle machinery. These are safety issues which the manufacturers are pointing out, so that they can't be sued if something happens as a result of falling asleep/have an accident as a result of the medication.

As you have just started on the medication, you have no way of knowing if you will be affected to the point that you can't drive or for how long. Might be a few days, or it might be a lot longer than 8 weeks.

So in my view, you are being unreasonable to be asking for a blanket 8 weeks wfh and it sounds like a good excuse. It may be absolutely genuine, but I can see why HR will be wanting confirmation that what you are telling the truth. It really doesn't make a difference how long you have worked for them or how much sick leave you have or have not taken. This is a new situation.

It seems to me that you would be better to get a sick line from your GP for a week or two at a time and see how you are affected and take it from there?