Potential forced retirement on medical grounds
Discussion
Hi Guys,
Need some advice if possible.
Other half has a medical condition that requires corrective surgery on both knees which will eventually lead to replacement. Surgeon doesn't want to do this yet due to age (38).
She is off work at the moment, having had surgery a couple of weeks back, recovery time is expected to be 6 weeks.
Her work has a tmp in to cover whilst she is away (works at the local authority).
Today she receives an email from her manager mentioning 'extended' recovery time, in a context that reads that they were unaware, they were't as it hasn't changed from what she told them originally. More concerning is they want her to electronically sign the email to authorise them to involve occupational health for assessment prior to return (this is expected) but the wording on parts of the form look (and I've read this multiple times) like they are suggesting retirement on medical grounds.
She's always had the condition, they were aware of it when she started some 8 or 9 years ago. She is in a low paid admin job, which is mostly desk based.
The email is suggestive of excessive time off - she does have bad days when the pain is too great, and this has amounted to 15 sick days in the past 2 years, + she had an operation 2 years ago when had a 4 week recover time. Previous years, have been along the same paths but the time off is decreasing as the surgery appears to be working.
Aside of this, she is never off, and in fact for the past 3 or 4 years has done about an hour overtime a day (unpaid) when if you take say 200 working hours amounts to 5 days (this was my suggestion if an effort to try and give something back), it appears that this has gone totally unnoticed.
I'm aware of the argument that if you can't do the jobs etc ... and I can fully understand this. She is in a newish role that can now apparently be done from home, and they place of employment does have home workers. She has asked to do this on 'bad' days and also while she recovers from surgery, but for some reason they won;t let her. However, 15 sick days in two years does't seem that excessive to me. The operations add to this I agree, but surely given she is registered disabled, they can't hold this against her, or can they ?
There is a round of redundancies coming up in September, so I suspect this will resolve then, which would be pretty underhand, but such is life sometimes.
I've suggested that she sees if there is a pert time role, another option I haven't suggested yet is she takes any sick days as unpaid (the money doesn't matter more than keeping the job). Final option is to insist on knee replacement 'now' and after 'one more' set of time off, things should disappear (but that is another battle entirely).
Sending her this document so close to her having had the op has been quite upsetting for her. Even I, who believes in some degree to saying it like it is has thought this was at the very least insensative. She also rang work last week (not sure why) and a colleague she spoke to (team leader I think) was very 'offish' with her and suggestive that there would be obstacles to her return.
Just hoping someone can offer some advice on how to handle this.
Thanks in advance,
Martin
Need some advice if possible.
Other half has a medical condition that requires corrective surgery on both knees which will eventually lead to replacement. Surgeon doesn't want to do this yet due to age (38).
She is off work at the moment, having had surgery a couple of weeks back, recovery time is expected to be 6 weeks.
Her work has a tmp in to cover whilst she is away (works at the local authority).
Today she receives an email from her manager mentioning 'extended' recovery time, in a context that reads that they were unaware, they were't as it hasn't changed from what she told them originally. More concerning is they want her to electronically sign the email to authorise them to involve occupational health for assessment prior to return (this is expected) but the wording on parts of the form look (and I've read this multiple times) like they are suggesting retirement on medical grounds.
She's always had the condition, they were aware of it when she started some 8 or 9 years ago. She is in a low paid admin job, which is mostly desk based.
The email is suggestive of excessive time off - she does have bad days when the pain is too great, and this has amounted to 15 sick days in the past 2 years, + she had an operation 2 years ago when had a 4 week recover time. Previous years, have been along the same paths but the time off is decreasing as the surgery appears to be working.
Aside of this, she is never off, and in fact for the past 3 or 4 years has done about an hour overtime a day (unpaid) when if you take say 200 working hours amounts to 5 days (this was my suggestion if an effort to try and give something back), it appears that this has gone totally unnoticed.
I'm aware of the argument that if you can't do the jobs etc ... and I can fully understand this. She is in a newish role that can now apparently be done from home, and they place of employment does have home workers. She has asked to do this on 'bad' days and also while she recovers from surgery, but for some reason they won;t let her. However, 15 sick days in two years does't seem that excessive to me. The operations add to this I agree, but surely given she is registered disabled, they can't hold this against her, or can they ?
There is a round of redundancies coming up in September, so I suspect this will resolve then, which would be pretty underhand, but such is life sometimes.
I've suggested that she sees if there is a pert time role, another option I haven't suggested yet is she takes any sick days as unpaid (the money doesn't matter more than keeping the job). Final option is to insist on knee replacement 'now' and after 'one more' set of time off, things should disappear (but that is another battle entirely).
Sending her this document so close to her having had the op has been quite upsetting for her. Even I, who believes in some degree to saying it like it is has thought this was at the very least insensative. She also rang work last week (not sure why) and a colleague she spoke to (team leader I think) was very 'offish' with her and suggestive that there would be obstacles to her return.
Just hoping someone can offer some advice on how to handle this.
Thanks in advance,
Martin
Her absolute best bet is to get Occupational Health involved, and I would suggest a quick consultation with an employment lawyer.
If they are looking to make redundancies, they will absolutely need to run by the book with a registered disabled person.
Tough situation, but LA employers are usually very good at this kind of situation, so I am surprised to hear this.
I wonder if in not allowing her role to be home based, if they are guilty of some discriminatory behavior. If other similar roles are home based, then you should ask them in writing for the reasons behind that decision.
Gargamel said:
Her absolute best bet is to get Occupational Health involved, and I would suggest a quick consultation with an employment lawyer.
If they are looking to make redundancies, they will absolutely need to run by the book with a registered disabled person.
Tough situation, but LA employers are usually very good at this kind of situation, so I am surprised to hear this.
I wonder if in not allowing her role to be home based, if they are guilty of some discriminatory behavior. If other similar roles are home based, then you should ask them in writing for the reasons behind that decision.
Thanks, I'm not sure if other similar roles are home based, I was meaning that they have the ability (IT setup) to have home workers, and so it may need to be an exception for her type of role in her case. Maybe this won't be possible, but it would be nice if they could considerate a bit more, as it would eliminate her sick days.If they are looking to make redundancies, they will absolutely need to run by the book with a registered disabled person.
Tough situation, but LA employers are usually very good at this kind of situation, so I am surprised to hear this.
I wonder if in not allowing her role to be home based, if they are guilty of some discriminatory behavior. If other similar roles are home based, then you should ask them in writing for the reasons behind that decision.
She would only need to do 'bad days' from home. I think one mentioned was she has a desktop, not a laptop - poor form really, simply swap her desktop for a laptop ...
I'm certainly not looking to jump of the disability discrimination wagon at all, just want to keep her in a job. Her life is hard as it is (28 operations I think so far) and with a chronic condition you have the 'emotional issues' - she often sees herself as a victim almost. Her works kinda breaks this cycle and thus is important for her mental health. Maybe the parttime option is the best idea, I don't know if they would be willing to split the role though or if she would have to find something else.
I'm surprised myself, being local authority they should be fully aware of all the surrounding legislation - what I'm sure of is cut off points what counts as excessive time off, can an operation every couple of years be factored in to this, especially if she the time off as unpaid.
They are required to look after her to a limited extent - the involvement of Occupational Health is their doing so.
They may consider medical retirement, without seeing the terms of the contract of employment and/or the insurance (CIC policy?) it is hard to give any firm answers.
They can also terminate employment due to her being unable to attend work. There are considerations around the Equality Act (and there is case law going both ways on this) they would need to consider.
I would suggest you take insured advice after giving someone the full information. Do you have a house insurance policy? If so, does it have a legal expenses section? It may cover employment. I would not suggest using the panel firm however I am afraid.
They may consider medical retirement, without seeing the terms of the contract of employment and/or the insurance (CIC policy?) it is hard to give any firm answers.
They can also terminate employment due to her being unable to attend work. There are considerations around the Equality Act (and there is case law going both ways on this) they would need to consider.
I would suggest you take insured advice after giving someone the full information. Do you have a house insurance policy? If so, does it have a legal expenses section? It may cover employment. I would not suggest using the panel firm however I am afraid.
OP - wouldn't your Mrs jump at the chance of her pension being made up to retirement age?
Another poster said it wouldn't stop her working elsewhere - mine does . They take the attitude that if you are fit enough to work then you are fit enough to work for them.
She could then volunteer wherever suits her - as it would be unpaid there'd be no worries about days when she. Could not 'work'.
Another poster said it wouldn't stop her working elsewhere - mine does . They take the attitude that if you are fit enough to work then you are fit enough to work for them.
She could then volunteer wherever suits her - as it would be unpaid there'd be no worries about days when she. Could not 'work'.
Gargamel said:
Her absolute best bet is to get Occupational Health involved, and I would suggest a quick consultation with an employment lawyer.
If they are looking to make redundancies, they will absolutely need to run by the book with a registered disabled person.
Tough situation, but LA employers are usually very good at this kind of situation, so I am surprised to hear this.
I wonder if in not allowing her role to be home based, if they are guilty of some discriminatory behavior. If other similar roles are home based, then you should ask them in writing for the reasons behind that decision.
Absolutely get Occy Health on board - as it is them who are going to be saying " it is extrememly likely that this condition falls within the disability provision of the equality act " If they are looking to make redundancies, they will absolutely need to run by the book with a registered disabled person.
Tough situation, but LA employers are usually very good at this kind of situation, so I am surprised to hear this.
I wonder if in not allowing her role to be home based, if they are guilty of some discriminatory behavior. If other similar roles are home based, then you should ask them in writing for the reasons behind that decision.
if the person is not in a union / professional representation organisation, get in one like tommorrow morning ...
the home based bit they will have to justify one way or the other and if Occy Health say it;s reasonable adjustment ... ( however some roles cannot be hoem based due to security of records etc)
mph1977 said:
Absolutely get Occy Health on board - as it is them who are going to be saying " it is extrememly likely that this condition falls within the disability provision of the equality act "
if the person is not in a union / professional representation organisation, get in one like tommorrow morning ...
the home based bit they will have to justify one way or the other and if Occy Health say it;s reasonable adjustment ... ( however some roles cannot be hoem based due to security of records etc)
Yes, Oc. Health are involved, in fact it was they who recommended the operation could improve things.if the person is not in a union / professional representation organisation, get in one like tommorrow morning ...
the home based bit they will have to justify one way or the other and if Occy Health say it;s reasonable adjustment ... ( however some roles cannot be hoem based due to security of records etc)
I've said to her to join the union asap.
Once again, thx all
mph999 said:
Thanks guys, appreciate the advice.
Didn't realise the pension is made up to retirement age, that helps a bit if it comes to that.
Hi. It's been a while since I worked for an LA so apologies if my knowledge may be somewhat out of date.Didn't realise the pension is made up to retirement age, that helps a bit if it comes to that.
It used to be the case that if she was retired on grounds of ill health her pension would be made up to retirement age. LGPS now have (I think) 3 levels of pension. You only get the best one if you're never likely to work again. If you are likely to be able to work again after the next 3 years OR you are able to work again sooner han that then the pension gets reduced. Her HR dept will know the full details.
Edited by Countdown on Tuesday 16th June 06:27
Jasandjules said:
If you want to get her to email me a copy of the CIC/Pension I will take a quick look FoC.
That is very kind (and generous) of you - thank you. I'll see if she has a copy at home, if not, I'll get her to get one from work as soon as she can, though I suspect that will be when she returns/ goes in next.shed driver said:
mph999 said:
Yes, Oc. Health are involved, in fact it was they who recommended the operation could improve things.
I've said to her to join the union asap.
Once again, thx all
Most unions won't take on a pre-existing case.I've said to her to join the union asap.
Once again, thx all
SD.
local reps may offer to attend meetings etc as a colleague...
There seems to be some confusion here regarding illness, inability to work, early retirement etc.
Here's some hard facts:
By the way, prior Pensions Ombudsman's decisions require an employer, before actual termination of employment, to tell the employee that the pension plan has an ill health early retirement provision, although doing so does not mean that entitlement is automatic. Many employers fail to mention this at all.
Good luck!
R.
Here's some hard facts:
- Inability to do one's job due to a medical condition are grounds for an employer to terminate a contract of employment. This will be covered in the contract of employment between the employee and the employer.
- Employment being terminated because of said medical condition DOES NOT mean that the employee qualifies for an ill health early retirement pension. The rules of the pension scheme will set out the criteria to be met before such a pension becomes paid. The criteria will say something like "the employee being permanently unable to take on gainful employment between now and normal retirement date." The trustees are likely to be required to make the decision and only oafter they have sought independent medical advice, and in my experience medical advisers tend to be wary about certifying permanent inability to work over what could be many years between termination and normal retirement date, which will mean the criteria have not been met. Also, many medical advisers will say something like "with appropriate treatment the employee can recover over time" which also means permanency has not been met.
- Getting a State disability benefit also does not mean that the early retirement pension will be paid, because of the same criteria issue mentioned above.
By the way, prior Pensions Ombudsman's decisions require an employer, before actual termination of employment, to tell the employee that the pension plan has an ill health early retirement provision, although doing so does not mean that entitlement is automatic. Many employers fail to mention this at all.
Good luck!
R.
would a compromise agreement and a mutually agreed departure be applicable in this case should equality/disability/discrimination issue arise ?
my understanding is (was?) that settlement agreements were reserved for cases where litigation/tribunal would be a likelihood. however, having re-read the guidelines i'm now not sure !!
paul
my understanding is (was?) that settlement agreements were reserved for cases where litigation/tribunal would be a likelihood. however, having re-read the guidelines i'm now not sure !!
paul
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff