Who decides what reasonable adaptations are?

[Bestseller]

And do you think these are reasonable?

Providing IT equipment, special desk and chair, and total cost £4000

Excusing employee from one task, which is usually about 20% of the workload for that role. It's a unpopular task and other team members would have to pick up the difference

3 x physio sessions pw in work time.

I'm asking because I'm part of the team and there has been some unrest. I'm fully supportive of the employer doing what they can to accomodate the disability and am very much "there but for the grace of God", but am genuinely unsure how much impact that should be allowed to have on the other staff. I'm sure employer will take advice, this is more for informal opinions.

FWIW colleague has recently joined and didn't disclose these issues (why should she?). It's not a new or worsening disability during the employment iyswim

Your manager should be taking the lead here and referring the colleague to OH again.

My understanding is what's reasonable also takes into account the employer's resources, so while £x might be a reasonable amount to expect a huge corporate to cover, it wouldn't necessarily be reasonable for a tiny business to make the same adjustment.

Op has an application to A2W been made? It's important to do this within 6 weeks or the company will have to pay.

OP, I think if you have issues with the additional work you're being given for no additional benefit, you're best off raising this as a separate issue with your boss as opposed to making it about your colleague.

I would also check your own employment contract to see whether it's consistent with the new tasks required of you (for example, if you have specific contracted hours in your contract but they're saying you'll have to work extra regularly to cover some of the lost day, then it might be that you're in a position to negotiate a pay rise or challenge what you're being asked to accept).

Just to be clear, a candidate would not be obliged to disclose a disability at any point during the recruitment process. They might have to, if a health and RA questionnaire is presented to them after they have accepted a job offer, however for any disability disclosure after that time, the employee is protected under the Equality Act and an offer withdrawal would be breaking the law.

An emergent disability may not even have been diagnosed at the time they joined, health conditions do change over time, they don't just happen in a nice orderly fashion to tie in with employment dates!

OP, I think if you have issues with the additional work you're being given for no additional benefit, you're best off raising this as a separate issue with your boss as opposed to making it about your colleague.

If you do take the matter to your manager, why not offer to be supportive of your colleague with health challenges, but request that their tasks are evenly distributed amongst the team, so that no individual has to do all the 'heavy lifting'.

How big is the team?

I think you are obliged to meet whatever requirements were disclosed during the first appointment with OH.

Failure to disclose relevant information during the recruitment process was a potential gross misconduct sacking offence in one of my former workplaces.

Is the list of current requirements exhaustive and has it been assessed by OH, and has anyone made a formal view on whether she would have been approved for the role if she had not withheld relevant information?

Being unable to do 20% of the job description is a biggie (irrespective of whether it's a loved or loathed task) and altering everyone else's job description to cover her tasks is not a reasonable adjustment.

The chair/equipment is (no matter the cost) and the medical appointment probably are (but can be unpaid, and staff can be asked to arrange them at least inconvenient times as possible within NHS system, and if using private physio, fitting them in outside work hours entirely would be the norm, though unpaid time off stil, OK when that really can't happen)

The best outcome (probably) would be an internal transfer to a post with tasks she do.

If however the decision is to eep her, she ought to move to 0.8 FTE to reflect the partial job description, and anyone taking on additional task shouid get overtime and/or bonus and/or payrise, as their job description has just been increased.

Who made that request for adjustment, the internal oh nurse?

As a manager I wouldn't be impressed at all with a new employee starting expecting such flexibity having failed to disclose their need to start with when the requested arrangements are likely to impact in the rest of the team and bring disruption.

They would have done it for fear of not being employed in the first place but ultimately its not going to make them popular with colleagues and management and therefore not make it a pleasant environment.

I'm the end, what is reasonable is what allows them to do the work. Is the quoted equipment really the cheapest that would meet the requirements?

Physio appointments should be out of work or they should use holiday time for it.

Being excuse from the unpopular task might be inevitable.

As a manager I would keep a tight process to evaluate their ability to perform the job otherwise. It they were excellent, showing initiatives and commitment, showing flexibility where they can and being supportive and helpful to the other staff, I would be OK with it. If not though and their demands affect the rest of the team and overall productivity, I would look at dismissal under capabilities. Havi g a disability doesn't protect you with a job no matter what, it just makes it harder and more demanding for an employer to dismiss the employee.

at some of the responses now.

I think you are obliged to meet whatever requirements were disclosed during the first appointment with OH

The employer is not automatically obliged to follow the recommendations. If they can demonstrate it is unreasonable then they don't have too.

Failure to disclose relevant information during the recruitment process was a potential gross misconduct sacking offence in one of my former workplaces

This is not the case in regards to disabilities. If the employer doesn't know they can't be blamed for not making adjustments but an employee can disclose at any time they choose and will be protected therein under the Equality Act.

Is the list of current requirements exhaustive and has it been assessed by OH, and has anyone made a formal view on whether she would have been approved for the role if she had not withheld relevant information?

If someone was turned down for a job based on additional (reasonable) adjustments due to disability it would be disability discrimination and the employer would be acting illegally.

Being unable to do 20% of the job description is a biggie (irrespective of whether it's a loved or loathed task)

It's really not. I've known individuals be on a 40% workload (so 60% reduction).

Altering everyone else's job description to cover her tasks is not a reasonable adjustment.

How they redistribute the workload is an entirely separate issue. It's totally irrelevant if the manager divvies it up or employs someone additional. It is up to these employees to raise an increase in workload with management.

The chair/equipment is (no matter the cost) and the medical appointment probably are (but can be unpaid, and staff can be asked to arrange them at least inconvenient times as possible within NHS system, and if using private physio, fitting them in outside work hours entirely would be the norm, though unpaid time off stil, OK when that really can't happen)

By and large correct if I'm not being pedantic

The best outcome (probably) would be an internal transfer to a post with tasks she do.

Transferring her to a different post rather than implementing adjustments first in the current post would not be best practice.

If however the decision is to eep her, she ought to move to 0.8 FTE to reflect the partial job description, and anyone taking on additional task shouid get overtime and/or bonus and/or payrise, as their job description has just been increased.

This would be illegal. If she is doing 80% in the full week, you can't deduct her wage. This would be penalising her for her disability. If it takes her longer/she finds it harder to complete the tasks well then she would still be on a 80% workload on the 0.8 week.

It is illegal not to take on the best candidate à job due to their disability but proving that was the reason is another matter.

Personally I don't understand why someone would apply for a job they know in advance they won't be able to fulfill.

Stripping so she can do 80% of the job for full pay?

so she can do 80% of the job for full pay?

That makes sense if the reason they can't do the other 20% is because of a disability, otherwise the employer would effectively be docking their agreed pay because of their disability, which is illegal.

Hi Stealth. It's obviously on a case by case basis but a reduced workload is a common adjustment - usually because the individual's disability means that it takes them longer to undertake the task or they are unable to.

The link below lists reduced workload in the table as an RA.

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/discrimination-at-work/what-are-the-different-types-of-discrimination/duty-to-make-reasonable-adjustments-at-work-what-must-employers-do/

For example if someone works in a shop and they can't manage the tagging of the clothes with their fine motor skills, but can clean/stack shelves/do the till etc. it's reasonable to exclude that task. Or if they can tag 80 clothes an hour when every one else can do 100, that can also be a fair and reasonable adjustment. It's up to the employer if they expect the 5 other staff to do an extra 4 each, put up with 20 less being tagged or pay someone an extra ten minutes per day to do them all. Would people really expect someone to be excluded from work entirely because of this or be paid less? What if it's a temporary disability like a broken finger? Should they be paid 20% less whilst they heal? I'm obviously using a large store with a big team as an example here.

That had paragraphs when I hit post!

‘Reasonable adjustments’ is a legal test. It’s hard to say exactly what is reasonable as it depends on a lot of factors. A larger employer would be expected to do more than a small employer, for example. The only way it could be properly tested is if the employer turned her down and she took them to an employment tribunal. But if she can’t do 20% of the job and can’t pick up equivalent work to make up the difference and she’s out of the workplace for another 10% or more for physio appointments I’d say that’s starting to sound hard to accommodate for most employers.

I am not an employment lawyer though!

Depending on circumstances, it’s unlikely the employee would be twiddling their thumbs. They’d do the other employees role while they did the 20% if appropriate/possible.

Personally I don't understand why someone would apply for a job they know in advance they won't be able to fulfill

9 times out of 10 the job spec will not cover it all or a specific task. I’ve complained re this in exit interviews more than once.

My favourite was OH telling me I was fine, fit or the job but couldn’t do any lifting. My line manager took me aside when I started and said if I couldn’t do heavy lifting the job offer would be rescinded.

Reading all these comments reminds me how prejudiced people are.

I’m in the middle of a bit of a mare getting a reasonable adjustment done. It’s for an existing condition my work knew about. They’re happy to make the adjustment, it’s the IT department who are getting in the way but that’s another story!

Reasonable adjustments are meant to make it so you can do the job on equal footing with your non disabled colleagues.

I had a discussion with HR about “reasonable” because I was concerned about the cost being “reasonable” the equipment will end up costing about £4K (it doesn’t need to but like I said, the IT dept are making it ridiculous). I work for a large government organisation with a a budget or millions, HR said that “reaonable” in relation to cost of the equipment is usually viewed in terms of the resources of the employer, and they’d be hard pressed to prove it wasn’t reasonable. Your colleague can also go through Access to Work, minimising the cost of the adjustments, so your employer isn’t going to get away with simply saying it’s not reasonable on ground of cost without thoroughly justifying it.

She was under no obligation to say she needed the adjustment before starting, but once she did make you aware, she is protected and you need to look at accommodating her needs. It sounds like her health problems give rise to quite a lot of needs for her, so she would probably have been smarter to say she she had accepted the job and before she started, but she was under no obligation to do so. I didn’t declare my own conditions until I absolutely had to.

I also have an adjustment in place saying that I don’t have to do a particular task which could be about up to about 20% of my work. It’s up to my manager how he works around this, not me. You can’t say no to this adjustment just because no one else likes doing that particular bit of work.

Regarding the physio, does your workplace have a policy about time off for medical appointments? We are allowed up to four hours a week, which includes travelling time to and from the appointment (this is important). Anything outside that is recorded as sick leave. If I needed that much treatment every week, they would insist on treating the balance as sick leave, as presumably I’d be pretty ill already and wouldn’t think it reasonable to expect an ill employee to make for to make up the extra time. If she wants, say, 3 x 2.5 hours (picking it out of the air, say an hour appointment, half hour travelling each way and half hour for faffing) paid time off every week for physio as that adds up to a whole working day, but maybe for one appointment it would be reasonable and allow her the time for the others unpaid but within the working day - so the adjustment would be to alter her working hours to accommodate the appointments rather than giving her a day off paid every week.

I sleep - you’re entitled to attend (unpaid) appointments related to your disability.

Yes I know, but adjusting her working would mean she still gets paid for those hours.

It's a fair ask for her appointments to be scheduled where possible on her days off and to not pay her for them but they wouldn't be allowed to put any off towards sickness absence levels.

This thread is a total demonstration that unless you have down syndrome or a wheelchair user, they're not disabled and just milking it. They don't need extra help, they're just not trying hard enough . When it comes to the bit, most people don't want put out by those with disabilities.

Bugger its not about being prejudiced its about also respecting the needs of a business alongside those of fellow employees.

In this case it would appear that the person chose to not disclose anything. Their right it would seem but not showing much care for the needs of the business. Then they request not to do the one task that somehow is the unpopular one. Then they request a large amount of time off that they might not require. Indeed physio department are used to cater for working people a d show flexibility with appointments.

It appears very one sided which is the issue. Of course we only get to go with what OP has written.

@swingofthings, it's because of attitudes like yours that disabled people don't declare their needs until they are in the job. Can you not see that?