Laws around MH & long term sick from work

[Pissedoffdotcom]

Wondering if somebody can help. Brief outline, DP been off work since July for severe MH. Under GP services, engaging with external support, completing CBT & awaiting further courses. Basically doing everything he can to move forward.

Had a meeting with HR & his line manager in September & they actioned a few things - occ. health were meant to call him weekly, the HR manager was to be in touch monthly & his line manager was meant to be in touch weekly. All focusing on moving forward, lessening his anxiety without having to fully focus on the stresses of work. He was also meant to get a breakdown of his pay whilst he was off so that we could plan finances - i'm on maternity so things are tight. We received that in November!!

Since September nothing has happened. Occ health rang twice. Didn't send reports to us to sign off so work haven't received them. HR have completely ignored DP. And his line manager hasn't bothered either.

Today we get a letter saying they want a meeting where they will be reviewing his employment! Can we fight this on the grounds that he is doing literally everything to get back to work whilst the company are basically stepping on the help they offered? He has been with the compant for 29 years, worked his ass off for them sometimes to the detriment of the family. I'm absolutely furious!

Have you got a copy of the sickness policy? It should clearly lay out the procedure.

The letter sounds like it might be badly worded, but review meetings are standard. Where I work they put it in terms of "whether xxxxx can continue to support your absence" - the manager is expected to take a view on how long this is likely to continue.

Basically they want to discuss what's going on, and how long this is going to continue.

That sounds like a lot of contact from various people, perhaps they thought it might exacerbate any stress.

They have cocked it up a bit by not keeping in touch/letting him know if they have decided a different approach if that's indeed the case.

I'd concentrate on asking for the copies of the report before the meeting and question the lack of contact but they are within their rights to request this meeting.

The meeting request isn't the issue. It's the 'to review your employment with the company' bit that has pissed me off. We were meant to have a meeting after 6 weeks & it never happened.

The contact was agreed by the team leader, HR & my DP because he didn't want to fully withdraw. Instead all we have had is silence - including with simple things like wage. We have had to chase things because nobody has bothered...and now the tone of the letter suggests they're looking at letting him go. They haven't even attempted to offer reasonable adjustments for him to start focusing on a return to work either.

Sounds to me like it's to do with the oh report possibly. You should have definitely received a copy of the reports so first step should be to ask for those before the meeting and also raise that they haven't stuck to what's agreed.

When were his oh assessments?

We got the second one. Haven't seen the first one. He got a letter at the beginning of November to say that HR had changed over - still no excuse for so long with no contact - and that a meeting would be arranged. The tone of the meeting letter is outrageous tho.

The sad thing is he's been struggling since March - which his upline was fully aware of. Nobody gave a shit. The GP even questioned why work hadn't been in touch for his medical info. I guess 29 years of hard work means jack shit nowadays 😔

A six month review sounds sensible tbh. Is he on full pay at present, does that change after six months?

It would be unusual for the employee to have to 'sign off' a report from OH IME, so it may well be that the company has got the report - can you contact OH for a copy if you don't have one? Is the OH not part of the company, I know some do outsource this bit.

If they have followed their sickness procedure, then yes they can dismiss for absence. I agree with a PP that it does sound like a lot of contact - but a six month review (which it would be in December) seems a good idea to see what is happening.

One thing to say is for his long service he will not receive loyalty in return. It sounds tough, but that is the way of the world.

As others have said employers can dismiss after a lengthy absence, especially if OH is saying that he will not be returning to work in the foreseeable future.

Is your husband a member of a union? They can offer very practical advice in these situations.

Discuss reasonable adjustments at the meeting. Think of what adjustments he needs, and go from there. Phased return, maybe permanently reduced hours, think about what is going to help him get back to work soonest.

Is your husband thinking of returning to work in the foreseeable future? Six months off is a really long time.

What does the most recent report say? Is there a likelihood of return to work?

I think they over committed in that meeting you mentioned other than engaging with him regularly and facilitate a return to work there's not a lot they can do nor can oh who are there to advise the company how best to support they can't diagnose or treat themselves.

A review meeting itself is ok. Does the letter say his employment could be terminated though?

Companies don't always contact gp for info they sometimes just go straight to occ health.

What did the report you received suggest about his condition/return to work?

And, tbf to the company even though they have ballsed it up a bit, they are right to point out that his employment might be at risk (if that's what the tone is), they should make your dh aware of the potential outcome, as hard as it is to see it written down.

OH has told us (in writing) that they cannot send their reports until DP has seen them & given consent. We weren't informed of this last time so either OH have gone against their own (the company) policy & sent it without review or the management haven't sent it.
DP has been on SSP not company, again something that we were not aware of. They were meant to send us his policy (apparently there are different levels depending on when you joined) alongside the rate of pay he was getting. Didn't happen.
At his first OH consult DP said he is desperate to get back, which he is. He is engaging with everything. OH said they would keep regular contact with him & review what adjustments work could make to ease him in. Yeah hasn't happened. OH has now said he won't be back before Christmas. She acknowledged over the phone that DP isn't being met in the middle by work, which has added to his anxiety because he is worried he won't manage going straight back into the deep end. Unfortunately that hasn't been put in the report. Something we are also trying to rectify.

The sad thing is had they made a bit of effort he might be back doing shorter shifts by now. As it stands he's feeling let down & is now stressing about it because he won't cope. This was acknowledged at the first meeting but seems to be forgotten.

I guess with all the hype on MH in the workplace i expected more. It's looking like actually that isn't going to make an impact in reality

Don't quote me but I believe after six months companies can move to end employment if the employee is not ready for phased return to work. If it's a condition with a known completion date most decent companies allow longer but the law allows a review then it's down to hr

My understanding of that is that they have to have offered assistance with reasonable adjustments tho? Which they haven't.

My gripe isn't that they potentially might sack him. It's that they haven't followed any of their own suggestions to help him get back

@anniehm, there's no set period in law before dismissal can be considered. Many organisations would start along the capability route far earlier.

OP is your husband contacting his line manager etc to keep in touch? Work have been lax in not contacting him, but any complaint on that point would be countered with whether he has made efforts to contact them, it is a two way thing.

All the hype on MH in the workplace is exactly that, hype. I've no doubt your husband is doing the best he can but at six months it's not unreasonable for them to start considering whether he is fit to do the job.

My understanding of that is that they have to have offered assistance with reasonable adjustments tho?

What RAs would be helpful? If he's not fit to return there's little in the way of RAs that they can do. Could he manage reduced hours?

Also RAs only apply if he meets the defn of disabled under the EqAct. If this is his first period of mental illness it's unlikely he will at this stage (as it's less than a year) although most employers will err on the side of caution where a condition is likely to be long term.

Yes he has. Both via phone contact & text message - both agreed routes of contact. I think he has managed to get through twice? The rest of the time he has either left a voicemail or sent a message saying that he tried to contact as agreed, can upline get back when he can. It should be a two way street...currently it isn't. DP has kept them up to date with his medication changes, GP appointments & courses he is doing.

I have no argument with them deciding to terminate in the sense that he has been off a while. But the lack of anything from them to enable him returning is infuriating & today's letter has added to that

No this isn't his first instance. His upline, GM & the old HR manager are well aware of his issues which are longstanding. He has had one period of extended sickness through the same issue about 10 years ago.

Reduced hours would help him massively. He currently works 10 hour shifts on alternate lates/earlies. If they eased him back into it he would feel less anxious about going back.

Does seem quite strange, it's been a while since I dealt with oh but my understanding is your dh should definitely see the full report before the employer to give him the opportunity to review and comment/correct any details if necessary. Consent is needed to share the full report otherwise the oh can just make their recommendation/observations to the employer based on the info (afaik)

My guess it's they have made their suggestion which has triggered the review meeting but obviously processes have gone awry somewhere down the line. Not good at all but wouldn't necessarily change any outcome if the report does suggest a return to work isn't going to be anytime soon. Am also surprised at oh commenting negatively about the employer, again from memory they are supposed to keep totally neutral.

Forgot to ask if your dh has mentioned reduced hours to them/oh? Documented anywhere such as on an email?

Are reduced hours feasible/practical though? If they've employed somebody to cover his full shift, they either have to double-pay whilst your DH returns on shorter hours, or they have to give fewer hours to the cover person and effectively set up a jobshare. You might find that they have already thought about this adjustment and decided it's not 'reasonable' from a business perspective.

With regards to the letter, don't get too hung up on the phrasing. Large companies tend to have template letters that have to be worded to cover a multitude of different situations. They don't get personalised for each person with 'kinder' words, they just get addressed and sent. I'd agree it's not ideal but I have had to accept that they cannot be edited, as the template letters have been checked by our internal legal team to ensure they don't compromise the company in any way.

We weren't told that initially about the OH report, it only came about this time because he got sent the report then two days letter got an email asking him to confirm he had it as she couldn't send it without his say so. Tbh i think she was just trying to placate him because he told her how pissed off he was that nothing was happening.

Currently there is a team leader doing his role as supervisor (unwillingly) so reduced hours would be well received by this person (DP has been in touch with colleagues he considers friends so this isn't just a guess). At the first meeting the original HR person said that the company has policies to cater a gradual return to work so if that was required it would be possible. But it hasn't been mentioned since.

The wording of the letter is quite abrasive & abrupt. It definitely comes across the wrong way.

So in the report you've seen does it suggest a gradual return or any other adjustments would increase the chance of him returning?

Really don't get hung up on the wording in the letter, some companies are gentle in their approach and some are quite blunt but generally they all include what the worst case could be.