Enforced sick leave instead of home working?

[z0mbee]

Our company has had a long-standing arrangement that staff can work from home, for at least two days a month. After this it is generally at the manager's discretion, but it is very rarely declined on the basis that a home-based employee that is working is better than an employee that is not.

I suffer from rapid cycling type 1 bipolar, and have on several occasions had to take extra work-from-home days due to anxiety issues preventing me from leaving the house. Our systems are all online, and I can usually be almost as productive. As such, my previous line manager (who now manages the department) always recommended I work from home rather than drag myself in and make things worse, potentially leading to actual time off.

The new line manager has now brought in rules for home working; the main one being that 24 hours must be given in all cases. If not, the day must be taken as holiday or sick leave. He has informed me separately that I do not need to give this notice, as I don't usually get this much myself! However, he has also notified me that my performance has to match the rest of the department to 'justify' allowing me to work from home instead of enforced sick or holiday. He also said that I need to work on the level below my in-office role for the purposes of being able to monitor me, even though no-one else I've spoken to gets this when working from home.

I appreciate that they are probably allowed to force you not to work, but I just don't understand the logic behind it - surely the company is better off with me working, albeit not in the office, than not working at all? I recently returned from several weeks off, having had an appointment with Occupational Health, and they recommended that management give me appropriate support in order to reduce stress. I don't feel like this is it!

[Eloise01]

Re: Enforced sick leave instead of home working?

I don't see anything unreasonable about this. Regardless of where you are working - the office or at home - then your performance should be of the same standard as everyone else. If your condition means that this is not the case, then the employer is right - you are not fit to work. Reasonable adjustments are intended to level the playing field by allowing employees with disabilities the adjustements they need to do as well in their employment as people without disabilities. If you are saying that you cannot do as well as other employees, then you could ask for a reasonable adjustment to targets / performance standards. But I would advise careful consideration of whether that is a sensible route to go down, because as soon as you open the can of worms that says you aren't fit and capable of working to the required standard even when working from home, it raises questions that you maybe don't want to be asked. Given that you have more "leeway" being given than everyone else (personally, I don't usually get 24 hours notice of a bad cold - although it would be handy - so I am not sure that this requirement is entirely "fair" to everyone else who would have to take sick leave or holiday, but that's the nature of a reasonable adjustment so that is tough on them), and, from the sound of it, your need to work from home more often than most, I think it is entirely reasonable that the employer wants to be able to have confidence that you are, in fact, working and to the required standard. After all, whilst your point that working rather than not working appears to have been well taken by the employer in the arrangements they have put in place for you, the other side of the coin is that if you are not working your full hours, or not producing the work required, why would they want to pay you full pay???

[z0mbee]

Re: Enforced sick leave instead of home working?

Ah, thanks - that's a good explanation of the side I hadn't considered.