Nut Allergy At Work
Discussion
This post is mainly out of intrigue as I'm sure there are people on here who'd know about this kind of thing.
My other half works with children with brain injuries and in a specific house with their age range. One of her colleagues who works with her has a severe nut allergy and on four separate occasions has ended up either signed off or hospitalised due to people not adhering to the signage around the building. One particularly bad episode ended up with her signed off for two weeks due to the severity of it.
It would seem that because of this, this girl has been getting quite a hard time about things. Other parts of the workplace refusing to remove jars of peanut butter from kitchens meaning she cannot enter those parts of the building etc. She is also being told that she may be hauled up for her sickness records due to the two weeks off, which were caused from the incident at work.
i just wondered where someone stands in terms of this? It's clearly a severe allergy but one she declared before joining the job. I believe the last incident was that she advised them she would react to roasting chestnuts and people were advised not to cook them until she'd done her bit and left, that was ignored and she ended up unwell again.
It seems these incidents are being blamed on her rather than their lack of care. I understood a workplace has an obligation to their employee for things like this rather than taking it out on the employee.
My other half works with children with brain injuries and in a specific house with their age range. One of her colleagues who works with her has a severe nut allergy and on four separate occasions has ended up either signed off or hospitalised due to people not adhering to the signage around the building. One particularly bad episode ended up with her signed off for two weeks due to the severity of it.
It would seem that because of this, this girl has been getting quite a hard time about things. Other parts of the workplace refusing to remove jars of peanut butter from kitchens meaning she cannot enter those parts of the building etc. She is also being told that she may be hauled up for her sickness records due to the two weeks off, which were caused from the incident at work.
i just wondered where someone stands in terms of this? It's clearly a severe allergy but one she declared before joining the job. I believe the last incident was that she advised them she would react to roasting chestnuts and people were advised not to cook them until she'd done her bit and left, that was ignored and she ended up unwell again.
It seems these incidents are being blamed on her rather than their lack of care. I understood a workplace has an obligation to their employee for things like this rather than taking it out on the employee.
Nut allergy is actually a disability, and is covered under DDA, employer needs to make reasonable adjustments, which they haven't. This is in addition to the Health and safety at work act... which they are also failing to adhere too.
You can pretty much no longer discipline someone for being ill, the place of work needs to manage it and make reasonable adjustments. These meetings about illness/absence shouldn't be a blame session they should be to try and address the challenges. Its also worth noting that the employee also needs to look after their own health and use any relevant PPE and such but im sure she does.
You can pretty much no longer discipline someone for being ill, the place of work needs to manage it and make reasonable adjustments. These meetings about illness/absence shouldn't be a blame session they should be to try and address the challenges. Its also worth noting that the employee also needs to look after their own health and use any relevant PPE and such but im sure she does.
Edited by Foliage on Thursday 15th December 13:11
Thank you for the replies so far, they pretty much mirror my thinking on it as well although I'm not expert by any means.
This employee certainly takes all the precautions she can and tries her best to inform those she can.
Didn't think it was very fair for her to be left tearful after being interrogated by her manager and it being implied she may lose her job as they 'can't find anywhere for her to go'.
This employee certainly takes all the precautions she can and tries her best to inform those she can.
Didn't think it was very fair for her to be left tearful after being interrogated by her manager and it being implied she may lose her job as they 'can't find anywhere for her to go'.
Foliage said:
Nut allergy is actually a disability, and is covered under DDA, employer needs to make reasonable adjustments, which they haven't. This is in addition to the Health and safety at work act... which they are also failing to adhere too.
You can pretty much no longer discipline someone for being ill, the place of work needs to manage it and make reasonable adjustments. These meetings about illness/absence shouldn't be a blame session they should be to try and address the challenges. Its also worth noting that the employee also needs to look after their own health and use any relevant PPE and such but im sure she does.
Good reply.You can pretty much no longer discipline someone for being ill, the place of work needs to manage it and make reasonable adjustments. These meetings about illness/absence shouldn't be a blame session they should be to try and address the challenges. Its also worth noting that the employee also needs to look after their own health and use any relevant PPE and such but im sure she does.
Edited by Foliage on Thursday 15th December 13:11
If they 'can't find anywhere for her to go' then they're absolutely going to get destroyed for Wrongful dismissal as they seem to have made absolutely no REAL effort to accommodate her illness.
This is outrageous.
I love peanuts, especially peanut butter and sometimes get fed up of being told I cannot have it at work or in my child's lunchbox because another child has an allergy but they cannot control it and it is seriously life threatening. I can have my beloved peanut butter on toast at home to my hearts content, I do not need to endanger someone for something so trivial.
The other staff members need to think about if it was their loved one that had this allergy and get over themselves..
I love peanuts, especially peanut butter and sometimes get fed up of being told I cannot have it at work or in my child's lunchbox because another child has an allergy but they cannot control it and it is seriously life threatening. I can have my beloved peanut butter on toast at home to my hearts content, I do not need to endanger someone for something so trivial.
The other staff members need to think about if it was their loved one that had this allergy and get over themselves..
It is a tricky one this !
I speak as an insulin dependant diabetic, and I don't have any answers, but I am surprised the employer even took her on.
Whilst trying to make the workplace fairer all these rules make the person less employable.
I actually have my own small company, but I wouldn't employ me (in fact I don't think I can be employed legally in my current role if you take the rules as they are written).
I speak as an insulin dependant diabetic, and I don't have any answers, but I am surprised the employer even took her on.
Whilst trying to make the workplace fairer all these rules make the person less employable.
I actually have my own small company, but I wouldn't employ me (in fact I don't think I can be employed legally in my current role if you take the rules as they are written).
Not wishing to make light of this lady's genuine condition, but why did nobody have nut allergies when I was a kid? Likewise asthma; in all my years at school I only had one classmate who suffered from this yet it seems to be quite common these days.
On the other hand, there was the young lady from Picketywitch who had "Total Allergy Syndrome". She was allergic to all materials from the 20th Century and could only come into contact with pure natural materials. It got so bad that she had to go into isolation inside a sealed plastic bubble. Think about it.
On the other hand, there was the young lady from Picketywitch who had "Total Allergy Syndrome". She was allergic to all materials from the 20th Century and could only come into contact with pure natural materials. It got so bad that she had to go into isolation inside a sealed plastic bubble. Think about it.
CanAm said:
Not wishing to make light of this lady's genuine condition, but why did nobody have nut allergies when I was a kid? Likewise asthma; in all my years at school I only had one classmate who suffered from this yet it seems to be quite common these days.
On the other hand, there was the young lady from Picketywitch who had "Total Allergy Syndrome". She was allergic to all materials from the 20th Century and could only come into contact with pure natural materials. It got so bad that she had to go into isolation inside a sealed plastic bubble. Think about it.
Asthma can be developed because of environmental factors such as air pollution. On the other hand, there was the young lady from Picketywitch who had "Total Allergy Syndrome". She was allergic to all materials from the 20th Century and could only come into contact with pure natural materials. It got so bad that she had to go into isolation inside a sealed plastic bubble. Think about it.
CanAm said:
Not wishing to make light of this lady's genuine condition, but why did nobody have nut allergies when I was a kid? Likewise asthma; in all my years at school I only had one classmate who suffered from this yet it seems to be quite common these days.
I agree with you on both counts.As for air pollution, it was much much worse in the 60s & 70s.
I wouldn't mind betting that some of the "fixes", like unleaded fuel for example, improve what "they" are measuring but cause lots of other issues.
Carbon dioxide & the increase in diesel vehicles as an example ?
bingybongy said:
I'm pretty sure peanuts are not nuts and are legumes.
So unless they have a peanut allergy as opposed to a nut allergy they should be fine.
Although pedantic that is correct hahaSo unless they have a peanut allergy as opposed to a nut allergy they should be fine.
Unfortunately the allergy seems to be triggered by peanuts and chestnuts in the two situations I'm aware of. It can be life threatening and as mentioned has resulted in her having to be signed off and have urgent shots of what I assume is adrenalin.
Thing is I can't help thinking this is not the most difficult allergy for a workplace to adhere to? I mean yes I could understand if someone said they were allergic to something completely unavoidable but a food allergy that you can narrow down is surely not impossible?
I agree that there is a lot of political correctness gone mad etc etc, but surely this woman is entitled to be able to work in a job?
Surely it's better someone is working hard and willing to work as opposed to going, 'Sorry I can't work, no where takes my nut allergy seriously'. All compo-faced on the front of a local rag whilst nabbing benefits off the state?
Nigel Worc's said:
In answer to the OPs question.
It will be everyone elses fault, and the whole world will have to revolve around the lady with the nut allergy.
But it isn't anyone's fault and it is easy for us to adapt slightly to accommodate people who suffer. It is life threatening, it isn't like us giving up meat to please a vegetarian or similar.It will be everyone elses fault, and the whole world will have to revolve around the lady with the nut allergy.
I'd recommend her to start recording all these incidents and perhaps getting witnesses to these incidents and the lack of care the employer is showing.
Might be helpful to have before/if she is unfairly dismissed and wants to, rightly so, go to tribunal.
Maybe contact Health and Safety Executive with this evidence whilst looking for a new and better job. Not worth having a fatal incident.
Might be helpful to have before/if she is unfairly dismissed and wants to, rightly so, go to tribunal.
Maybe contact Health and Safety Executive with this evidence whilst looking for a new and better job. Not worth having a fatal incident.
Edited by AndrewEH1 on Thursday 15th December 14:33
Alex_225 said:
bingybongy said:
I'm pretty sure peanuts are not nuts and are legumes.
So unless they have a peanut allergy as opposed to a nut allergy they should be fine.
Although pedantic that is correct hahaSo unless they have a peanut allergy as opposed to a nut allergy they should be fine.
Unfortunately the allergy seems to be triggered by peanuts and chestnuts in the two situations I'm aware of. It can be life threatening and as mentioned has resulted in her having to be signed off and have urgent shots of what I assume is adrenalin.
Thing is I can't help thinking this is not the most difficult allergy for a workplace to adhere to? I mean yes I could understand if someone said they were allergic to something completely unavoidable but a food allergy that you can narrow down is surely not impossible?
I agree that there is a lot of political correctness gone mad etc etc, but surely this woman is entitled to be able to work in a job?
Surely it's better someone is working hard and willing to work as opposed to going, 'Sorry I can't work, no where takes my nut allergy seriously'. All compo-faced on the front of a local rag whilst nabbing benefits off the state?
I'd take a different view if people are flicking nuts at her, or sneaking them into contact with her.
I of course agree it is a good thing she is trying to work, but not a good thing that if in that particular workplace she needs everyone else to modify their behaviour just to suit her.
Kateg28 said:
Nigel Worc's said:
In answer to the OPs question.
It will be everyone elses fault, and the whole world will have to revolve around the lady with the nut allergy.
But it isn't anyone's fault and it is easy for us to adapt slightly to accommodate people who suffer. It is life threatening, it isn't like us giving up meat to please a vegetarian or similar.It will be everyone elses fault, and the whole world will have to revolve around the lady with the nut allergy.
I realise it can be life threatening, so SHE needs to manage that.
Being allergic to something as common as nuts must be a pita, so rather than expect everyone else to accommodate her, maybe she needs to stay away from food preparation areas etc.
Nigel Worc's said:
Kateg28 said:
Nigel Worc's said:
In answer to the OPs question.
It will be everyone elses fault, and the whole world will have to revolve around the lady with the nut allergy.
But it isn't anyone's fault and it is easy for us to adapt slightly to accommodate people who suffer. It is life threatening, it isn't like us giving up meat to please a vegetarian or similar.It will be everyone elses fault, and the whole world will have to revolve around the lady with the nut allergy.
I realise it can be life threatening, so SHE needs to manage that.
Being allergic to something as common as nuts must be a pita, so rather than expect everyone else to accommodate her, maybe she needs to stay away from food preparation areas etc.
Alex_225 said:
This post is mainly out of intrigue as I'm sure there are people on here who'd know about this kind of thing.
My other half works with children with brain injuries and in a specific house with their age range. One of her colleagues who works with her has a severe nut allergy and on four separate occasions has ended up either signed off or hospitalised due to people not adhering to the signage around the building. One particularly bad episode ended up with her signed off for two weeks due to the severity of it.
It would seem that because of this, this girl has been getting quite a hard time about things. Other parts of the workplace refusing to remove jars of peanut butter from kitchens meaning she cannot enter those parts of the building etc. She is also being told that she may be hauled up for her sickness records due to the two weeks off, which were caused from the incident at work.
i just wondered where someone stands in terms of this? It's clearly a severe allergy but one she declared before joining the job. I believe the last incident was that she advised them she would react to roasting chestnuts and people were advised not to cook them until she'd done her bit and left, that was ignored and she ended up unwell again.
It seems these incidents are being blamed on her rather than their lack of care. I understood a workplace has an obligation to their employee for things like this rather than taking it out on the employee.
How hard is it not to need peanut butter?My other half works with children with brain injuries and in a specific house with their age range. One of her colleagues who works with her has a severe nut allergy and on four separate occasions has ended up either signed off or hospitalised due to people not adhering to the signage around the building. One particularly bad episode ended up with her signed off for two weeks due to the severity of it.
It would seem that because of this, this girl has been getting quite a hard time about things. Other parts of the workplace refusing to remove jars of peanut butter from kitchens meaning she cannot enter those parts of the building etc. She is also being told that she may be hauled up for her sickness records due to the two weeks off, which were caused from the incident at work.
i just wondered where someone stands in terms of this? It's clearly a severe allergy but one she declared before joining the job. I believe the last incident was that she advised them she would react to roasting chestnuts and people were advised not to cook them until she'd done her bit and left, that was ignored and she ended up unwell again.
It seems these incidents are being blamed on her rather than their lack of care. I understood a workplace has an obligation to their employee for things like this rather than taking it out on the employee.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff