Penalised for working slower due to illness...
Discussion
Just looking for some advice really...a friend of mine 
works in a manufacturing workshop with probably 100 other people, the company is internationally known and one of the largest in it's sector.
Staff are timed on their output per hour/ shift, this is where things get a bit complicated. Every single employee has a different quota despite all being paid the same amount and doing the exact same job, the company claim this is down to what each individual is capable of, although some employees (rather wisely) hold themselves back and are therefore not expected to do much work, others (like my friend) perhaps stupidly worked hard and are now expected to do 1.5 times more work than the slower staff.
My friend then found out he had a pretty serious chronic illness and informed the company, had meetings with H&S and and independent Doctor who both advised the company that he would probably have reduced output do the severity of the illness increasing over time and also having good days/ bad days etc. The company seemed to be relatively lenient and understanding and nothing was said on the days when he worked slower than usual...
Cut to the past few weeks. The health and safety rep has been sacked, leaving no representation available to the guy and no-one to turn to for advice. The company suddenly come down on him like a sack of s
t, tell him he is taking the piss and they will take him to a disciplinary hearing (those were the actual words used).
He has had 12 days absent in one year, which I don't think is unreasonable considering he has an illness, then again if I was the owner of a company I might feel differently. It's probably also worth noting that even on his slow days, he is still beating the output of a lot of other guys, it's the only the fact that everyone has different quotas and his output is low in comparison to what he usually does that makes it look poor. Previously he was the number one producer out of all the factories in the world.
I know there is a fine line here, on one hand the company must make reasonable adjustments to accommodate him, on the other hand they legally have the right to dismiss him if they feel he is unfit to do the job. I would not say he is unfit to do the job considering his output still beats that of others.
What kind of advice can you offer here?
works in a manufacturing workshop with probably 100 other people, the company is internationally known and one of the largest in it's sector. Staff are timed on their output per hour/ shift, this is where things get a bit complicated. Every single employee has a different quota despite all being paid the same amount and doing the exact same job, the company claim this is down to what each individual is capable of, although some employees (rather wisely) hold themselves back and are therefore not expected to do much work, others (like my friend) perhaps stupidly worked hard and are now expected to do 1.5 times more work than the slower staff.
My friend then found out he had a pretty serious chronic illness and informed the company, had meetings with H&S and and independent Doctor who both advised the company that he would probably have reduced output do the severity of the illness increasing over time and also having good days/ bad days etc. The company seemed to be relatively lenient and understanding and nothing was said on the days when he worked slower than usual...
Cut to the past few weeks. The health and safety rep has been sacked, leaving no representation available to the guy and no-one to turn to for advice. The company suddenly come down on him like a sack of s
t, tell him he is taking the piss and they will take him to a disciplinary hearing (those were the actual words used). He has had 12 days absent in one year, which I don't think is unreasonable considering he has an illness, then again if I was the owner of a company I might feel differently. It's probably also worth noting that even on his slow days, he is still beating the output of a lot of other guys, it's the only the fact that everyone has different quotas and his output is low in comparison to what he usually does that makes it look poor. Previously he was the number one producer out of all the factories in the world.
I know there is a fine line here, on one hand the company must make reasonable adjustments to accommodate him, on the other hand they legally have the right to dismiss him if they feel he is unfit to do the job. I would not say he is unfit to do the job considering his output still beats that of others.
What kind of advice can you offer here?
PumpkinSteve said:
Just looking for some advice really...a friend of mine works in a manufacturing workshop with probably 100 other people, the company is internationally known and one of the largest in it's sector.
Staff are timed on their output per hour/ shift, this is where things get a bit complicated. Every single employee has a different quota despite all being paid the same amount and doing the exact same job, the company claim this is down to what each individual is capable of, although some employees (rather wisely) hold themselves back and are therefore not expected to do much work, others (like my friend) perhaps stupidly worked hard and are now expected to do 1.5 times more work than the slower staff.
My friend then found out he had a pretty serious chronic illness and informed the company, had meetings with H&S and and independent Doctor who both advised the company that he would probably have reduced output do the severity of the illness increasing over time and also having good days/ bad days etc. The company seemed to be relatively lenient and understanding and nothing was said on the days when he worked slower than usual...
Cut to the past few weeks. The health and safety rep has been sacked, leaving no representation available to the guy and no-one to turn to for advice. The company suddenly come down on him like a sack of st, tell him he is taking the piss and they will take him to a disciplinary hearing (those were the actual words used).
He has had 12 days absent in one year, which I don't think is unreasonable considering he has an illness, then again if I was the owner of a company I might feel differently. It's probably also worth noting that even on his slow days, he is still beating the output of a lot of other guys, it's the only the fact that everyone has different quotas and his output is low in comparison to what he usually does that makes it look poor. Previously he was the number one producer out of all the factories in the world.
I know there is a fine line here, on one hand the company must make reasonable adjustments to accommodate him, on the other hand they legally have the right to dismiss him if they feel he is unfit to do the job. I would not say he is unfit to do the job considering his output still beats that of others.
What kind of advice can you offer here?
The company have no right, with prior knowledge of the condition, to dismiss him due to him being unfit to do his job through chronic illness. They must structure a support plan to aid the employee in carrying out their tasks and assist them in performing their role. works in a manufacturing workshop with probably 100 other people, the company is internationally known and one of the largest in it's sector. Staff are timed on their output per hour/ shift, this is where things get a bit complicated. Every single employee has a different quota despite all being paid the same amount and doing the exact same job, the company claim this is down to what each individual is capable of, although some employees (rather wisely) hold themselves back and are therefore not expected to do much work, others (like my friend) perhaps stupidly worked hard and are now expected to do 1.5 times more work than the slower staff.
My friend then found out he had a pretty serious chronic illness and informed the company, had meetings with H&S and and independent Doctor who both advised the company that he would probably have reduced output do the severity of the illness increasing over time and also having good days/ bad days etc. The company seemed to be relatively lenient and understanding and nothing was said on the days when he worked slower than usual...
Cut to the past few weeks. The health and safety rep has been sacked, leaving no representation available to the guy and no-one to turn to for advice. The company suddenly come down on him like a sack of s
t, tell him he is taking the piss and they will take him to a disciplinary hearing (those were the actual words used). He has had 12 days absent in one year, which I don't think is unreasonable considering he has an illness, then again if I was the owner of a company I might feel differently. It's probably also worth noting that even on his slow days, he is still beating the output of a lot of other guys, it's the only the fact that everyone has different quotas and his output is low in comparison to what he usually does that makes it look poor. Previously he was the number one producer out of all the factories in the world.
I know there is a fine line here, on one hand the company must make reasonable adjustments to accommodate him, on the other hand they legally have the right to dismiss him if they feel he is unfit to do the job. I would not say he is unfit to do the job considering his output still beats that of others.
What kind of advice can you offer here?
You mentioned manufacturing so the question has to be asked; does the condition potentially have a safety risk with the person engaging in thier duties?
PumpkinSteve said:
^ I don't think there is any risk of the person injuring themselves or causing injury to others as the work is mainly hand assembly, each staff member works alone in an enclosed room and no heavy machinery is involved.
Grievance procedure then, written notice to line manager first thing tomorrow. ACAS will be able to advise further if doesn't want to speak with a specialist employment solicitor.fergywales said:
Grievance procedure then, written notice to line manager first thing tomorrow. ACAS will be able to advise further if doesn't want to speak with a specialist employment solicitor.
The line manager has written in his company file "has been advised that he may face a disciplinary hearing" which is relating to the 12 days of absence, this is company policy for everyone but do you think he should be given slight leeway on absences? The health and safety rep had previously told him not to worry about being absent and that he would not face action, but since that guy was sacked this has also seemed to become an issue.The employee is not a union member, do you think it'd be a wise move to join?
Johnnytheboy said:
I find it bizarre that they give people differnt targets. That's asking for trouble to start with.
Yes indeed, one very important thing I forgot to mention is that targets are specifically not mentioned in the contract of employment so I'm guessing that if he was dismissed for poor performance than the company would not have a leg to stand on?Edited by PumpkinSteve on Sunday 15th May 12:00
Targets are set in a rather bizarre manner: When you first join the company a manager puts pressure on you to work as fast as you can because you're on trial, then they will take those fast times and work out the average and then you're expected to match that from then on. If you have one bad day they sometimes let it slide, any more than that and a manager will take you to a back office on the sly and give you the old "this is not a bking but work fking faster" routine.
Managers come around to every employee at finishing time and check how much work has been done, they upload it to a computer and then can look at a graph of their production history, any slow working times are automatically flashed up to them in red alert style.
king but work fking faster" routine.Managers come around to every employee at finishing time and check how much work has been done, they upload it to a computer and then can look at a graph of their production history, any slow working times are automatically flashed up to them in red alert style.
Edited by PumpkinSteve on Sunday 15th May 12:16
PumpkinSteve said:
Targets are set in a rather bizarre manner: When you first join the company a manager puts pressure on you to work as fast as you can because you're on trial, then they will take those fast times and work out the average and then you're expected to match that from then on. If you have one bad day they sometimes let it slide, any more than that and a manager will take you to a back office on the sly and give you the old "this is not a bking but work fking faster" routine.
It's all a bit harsh, although I suppose productivity is the key. What's written in the contracts regarding the "targets"?king but work fking faster" routine.carreauchompeur said:
PumpkinSteve said:
Targets are set in a rather bizarre manner: When you first join the company a manager puts pressure on you to work as fast as you can because you're on trial, then they will take those fast times and work out the average and then you're expected to match that from then on. If you have one bad day they sometimes let it slide, any more than that and a manager will take you to a back office on the sly and give you the old "this is not a bking but work fking faster" routine.
It's all a bit harsh, although I suppose productivity is the key. What's written in the contracts regarding the "targets"?king but work fking faster" routine.Likewise, if policies are not applied uniformly, discrimination immediately becomes a potential factor and the associated World of pain should such management practices be uncovered following wrongful/unfair dismissal.
I'd advise the friend to get a written explanation of what they are expected to do performance wise on a day-to-day basis, and to keep such written explanation in a safe place.
VeeFour said:
Only one side of the story here.
The other side is that they have an employee who takes lots of time off sick and works slowly.
What would you do if it were your business?
Tread carefully, considering they have prior knowledge of a medical condition that they have previous accommodated.The other side is that they have an employee who takes lots of time off sick and works slowly.
What would you do if it were your business?
VeeFour said:
Only one side of the story here.
The other side is that they have an employee who takes lots of time off sick and works slowly.
What would you do if it were your business?
But is still outperforming able-bodied (for want of a better phrase) colleagues, yet not being paid any more?The other side is that they have an employee who takes lots of time off sick and works slowly.
What would you do if it were your business?
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff