Unusual Illness/Work related question

Burnsy2023 · 9 Jul 2010 at 15:59

anticonscience said:
I agree that reasonable steps should be taken, but if there are issues of absence/low staff levels at the other store and if this person phoned in sick one day and no-one else is on that department other areas of the business will suffer for that day due to having to cover sickness.

That is life unfortunetly.

antijoke · 9 Jul 2010 at 16:02

Yes it's life, but surely as the store manager this is the type of decsion/thought process you would go through when making the decision about the transfer?

Or is it simply a closed case and the employer must obey the transfer request?

I'm just genuienly interested in the impact of thigs like this on the employer/employee, hence my questions.

Swifty55 · 9 Jul 2010 at 16:05

anticonscience said:
Yes it's life, but surely as the store manager this is the type of decsion/thought process you would go through when making the decision about the transfer?

Yes, but surely basing the decision purely on an illness she has no control over seems a little harsh?

I could understand if her time keeping is bad and she took the **** from having days off, but that's not the case.

antijoke · 9 Jul 2010 at 16:07

FTR, I am not saying the store has done the right thing here, as simply we do not know anything else, I'm just thinking about the situation and the impact of the DDA on employers/employees.

In this situation I would be asking for the request to be responded to in writing detailing the reasons why the transfer request has been denied, then I would be asking the CAB/union (if a member) for advice.

It could simply be a case of the store is over headcount and the store you are at are just being stupid with the responses.

[Slip] · 9 Jul 2010 at 16:10

If I was a manager of that supermarket (and thank god I'm not) and I thought the illness/time off was a problem I'd WANT someone to transfer away from my supermarket

BenjiSayers · 9 Jul 2010 at 16:10

I can see exactly where anticonscience is coming from it does have the posibility of being quite a tricky subject for many employers. I just feel that in this case the reasoning they have given is unjust and harsh. Shall get more specifics as soon as I can.

BenjiSayers · 9 Jul 2010 at 18:10

I've spoken to now and she has said that HR at her current store have said that the other store won't accept the request due to her illness record. This has all been done verbally.

Azza · 9 Jul 2010 at 18:14

BenjiSayers said:
I've spoken to now and she has said that HR at her current store have said that the other store won't accept the request due to her illness record. This has all been done verbally.

I say go into the other store. If it isn't in writing then they could just be talking **** and lying to her.

[TW]Fox · 9 Jul 2010 at 18:31

Burnsy2023 said:
They should be a decent employer and make reasonable adjustments for her. I don't see why employers need to 'protect' themselves from being reasonable.

I do have to wonder why an employer should be the one who bears the costs of somebody elses decision to work with them :confused:

They are effectivley receiving less work for the same money invested as other members of staff yet seem legally obliged to not be able to do anything about it :confused:

BF-Bert · 10 Jul 2010 at 16:40

If she had the illness before starting work there, why didnt she specify the other store in her application?

Maximum Triceratops · 10 Jul 2010 at 16:46

where I work, transfers are denied if any of my staff have a certain number of absences, we have a 3 stage process and if they are on any of those stages then they cannot apply for transfers. We are never specific to certain forms of illness though.

BenjiSayers · 11 Jul 2010 at 11:19

BF-Bert said:
If she had the illness before starting work there, why didnt she specify the other store in her application?

When she applied for the job the other store had no vacancies or she would have done.

She is going to contact CAB though and see where she stands though.

Rich_L · 11 Jul 2010 at 14:42

[TW]Fox;16913147 said:
I do have to wonder why an employer should be the one who bears the costs of somebody elses decision to work with them

They are effectivley receiving less work for the same money invested as other members of staff yet seem legally obliged to not be able to do anything about it

It's to help disabled people get employment rather than being left to rot for their entire lives - much like stores and businesses have to be accessible to the disabled even though it costs more and would probably be more profitable just to not have their custom.