Tweet
Hi all,
Just a quick post as I try to help someone out.
A family member works for a public sector organisation. They attended work some time ago as normal and in the course of their duty, received an injury that has now caused long-term issues and so would now be classed as disabled.
His employer has said that he cannot remain in the role they are in as they cannot do 100% of the role and that they want him out of there but will look for something suitable for him. They have said that if the end result is nothing comes up will be dismissed. Now, I can understand this being the case if the injury didn't happen at work but when the injury happened whilst executing their duty, surely this shouldn't apply?
The policy is they can find them a job one pay scale above or one below their current one or indeed one at the same grade. They have offered part-time work so far and jobs that have a pay-cut of around £500 per month.
In all the letters they have had, they have been told by their HR team that it is due to 'their health condition' - to me, this shouldn't be the case and should be noted as 'due to the injury sustained whilst on duty'.
A letter also states ' your redeployment is a result of your health' again, it isn't because of the health condition as there are reasonable adjustments that can be made, this is something that they feel is being imposed on them due to a new batch of staff training to go into the role he is in.
I'm just wondering if anyone can help in what direction to take. Of course, they have expressed interest in other roles but purely out of fear of being given the boot for something that happened at work.
There is no reason why they cannot work restricted duties and this has been supported by management but told it isn't the case by HR, they refer to information in an Occ Health report, the person has not had sight of that and feels that as this relates to them, they should have been consulted on.
They have offered them 20 hours in one role and 17 hours in the role they do now... confused as this defeats their statement of not being fit for their job or words to that effect.
If anyone can offer any help or knows of any existing case law, that would be great!
Thanks,
IABM
Just a quick post as I try to help someone out.
A family member works for a public sector organisation. They attended work some time ago as normal and in the course of their duty, received an injury that has now caused long-term issues and so would now be classed as disabled.
His employer has said that he cannot remain in the role they are in as they cannot do 100% of the role and that they want him out of there but will look for something suitable for him. They have said that if the end result is nothing comes up will be dismissed. Now, I can understand this being the case if the injury didn't happen at work but when the injury happened whilst executing their duty, surely this shouldn't apply?
The policy is they can find them a job one pay scale above or one below their current one or indeed one at the same grade. They have offered part-time work so far and jobs that have a pay-cut of around £500 per month.
In all the letters they have had, they have been told by their HR team that it is due to 'their health condition' - to me, this shouldn't be the case and should be noted as 'due to the injury sustained whilst on duty'.
A letter also states ' your redeployment is a result of your health' again, it isn't because of the health condition as there are reasonable adjustments that can be made, this is something that they feel is being imposed on them due to a new batch of staff training to go into the role he is in.
I'm just wondering if anyone can help in what direction to take. Of course, they have expressed interest in other roles but purely out of fear of being given the boot for something that happened at work.
There is no reason why they cannot work restricted duties and this has been supported by management but told it isn't the case by HR, they refer to information in an Occ Health report, the person has not had sight of that and feels that as this relates to them, they should have been consulted on.
They have offered them 20 hours in one role and 17 hours in the role they do now... confused as this defeats their statement of not being fit for their job or words to that effect.
If anyone can offer any help or knows of any existing case law, that would be great!
Thanks,
IABM
Comment