occupational health

[Redshoes]

It should be adjustment passport first but can be done at the same time. Never heard of a OH referral being refused. There are less people who are able to do it now though. It's only people with a full working company email address so that will be senior team.

[oldfashionedplayer]

a oh report is something your entitled to, so if your being refused take out a grievance for it to be honest..

[dfl]

Finally met with manager re report, basically explaining he/she has insufficient staff to provide any lighter duty currently (and yes in my view c&c is lighter to cover a comment on here), just seems to me that manager is just deeming it too much hassle.

[lucgeo]

So this manager is not fulfilling the agreement for adjustments put in place 

It's irrelevant to you if there is insufficient staff, that is for them to manage as their title dictates! If there is an agreement to lighter duties, and the adjustments period still in force, then they are duty bound to honour that agreement, and you can refuse to perform the heavier tasks!

It's not down to a manager, to disregard your health and well being, ignore the OH report and the agreements in place to the adjustments, just because they can't manage their department! This is your health the manager is playing god with, just to have an easier time!!

Bet your bottom dollar, if you suffer any permanent damage, the buck will pass right back to you, in that it was your decision and agreed to do it, and you'll have a hard time claiming from Tesco, should it result in being unable to work again!

[hesketh]

The magic words you need to throw..... "CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL"

Simply inform your "managers" that their actions are making your continued employment increasingly untenable and you will go to tribunal if they make leaving your only option.

CD is actually quite hard to get accepted at tribunal but you can bet your life that they will not want to be the "manager" that put the company at tribunal for it #career ender 

[oldfashionedplayer]

like said by others, its in their title for managing, if they dont have the staff, then tuff, they can run shorthanded, get extra hours with you being moved elsewhere etc so thats them just not wanting to do their job, if you've been told you need Lighter Duties as a reasonable adjustment they should be making it and you should be getting any and all refusals etc in writing so if you do hurt yourself due to it, or make it worse due to it, you've got grounds that your employer refused reasonable adjustments through their own reach out that they advertise and your health and safety wasn't correctly managed.

[Cinderella]

Finally met with manager re report, basically explaining he/she has insufficient staff to provide any lighter duty currently (and yes in my view c&c is lighter to cover a comment on here), just seems to me that manager is just deeming it too much hassle.

I am in exactly this position right now, and going back on full duties has given me a health setback. I am having to take it further, which is stressful and as usual, the union seem to be completely unreachable!

[Mark calloway]

Can I personally contact OH? I've got all my info from the drs but my manager hasn't referred me yet.

[NightAndDay]

like said by others, its in their title for managing, if they dont have the staff, then tuff, they can run shorthanded, get extra hours with you being moved elsewhere etc so thats them just not wanting to do their job, if you've been told you need Lighter Duties as a reasonable adjustment they should be making it and you should be getting any and all refusals etc in writing so if you do hurt yourself due to it, or make it worse due to it, you've got grounds that your employer refused reasonable adjustments through their own reach out that they advertise and your health and safety wasn't correctly managed.

There's managing and there's being exploited, something which the vast majority of Tesco managers fall under.

Many are working for less than minimum wage, Tesco is aware of this, but as they are so powerful they know they can get away with it.

[ForCryingOutLoud]

There is too much misinformation on here. OH recommendations  are recommendations ONLY.  A company is not obliged to follow them but it is best practice for them to support with these recommendations.  OH reports are usually requested due to LTAbsence & not because an employee wants one. Please bear in mind that asking for lighter duties is a temporary resolution. In effect you are stating you are not capable/ fit to perform your contracted role, which then becomes a capability issue. Finally, advising someone to throw constructive dismissal out there is risky.  Constructive dismissal is very difficult to prove & you certainly don't want to be making these threats without seeking legal advice.

[DHardy]

You've lost it - an OH referall is for the company to make it easier for the colleagues, in any which way. If a SM chooses to go against it - which is likely as they are protecting themselves at the mo - then on his head be it. This whole "Tesco are above the Gov" is nonsense. Collate the facts and evidence and watch senior team/SM shake...

[ForCryingOutLoud]

No, an OH referral is a paper trail to demonstrate that the business has put something in place to support the colleague. Empasis on the word ' something' and reasonable. It is a tick box exercise to ensure that if it was to go to a tribunal there is supporting evidence in place. It is highly unlikely that a business will ignore the recommendations in these reports but dont be fooled / naive into thinking it is for the benefit of an employee. All referrals/ adjustments are on a case by case basis. Employees can be dismissed for their absence, report or not, once the business has exhausted all options and due process.

[oldfashionedplayer]

There is too much misinformation on here. OH recommendations  are recommendations ONLY.  A company is not obliged to follow them but it is best practice for them to support with these recommendations.  OH reports are usually requested due to LTAbsence & not because an employee wants one. Please bear in mind that asking for lighter duties is a temporary resolution. In effect you are stating you are not capable/ fit to perform your contracted role, which then becomes a capability issue. Finally, advising someone to throw constructive dismissal out there is risky.  Constructive dismissal is very difficult to prove & you certainly don't want to be making these threats without seeking legal advice.

correct, it is recommendation and is advisable, and if a colleague feels they aren't listened to on it, then an employment tribunal apparently is an option, but something if it's related to say a mental illness, or a disability or health condition thats going to be long term, it would be absurd not to aim to work with the colleague to put in some adjustments... colleagues could also raise the fact they are being discriminated against due to being of similar nature to someone else who's been accommodated for... so there are a lot of scenario's, in hindsight it's risky ground for a company to to ignore advice or refuse changes to a colleague as it could bite them further down the line...

Like you say, lighter duties may be temporary, but there are scenarios in which it won't be, that has to be the bigger picture of "What is the issue now" "What can we do NOW", "How Long For?" "Is this something thats going to be longterm?" "is it classed as a health / disability issue?" - if it is the last one its such a sensitive issue to tread lightly on, cause its highly likely they cannot put them back in their main position so it's "what's next?" as the outcome, and that's difficult in itself to ascertain.

Short thing is, in this day and age, it's better to accommodate than it is to challenge, cause challenging leads to pay outs, businesses don't want pay outs... so they should try all options first to cover themselves... and OH is and will be something that can be used for or against the company.....Both work together or something happens to one... Business has more to lose to be honest.

[grim up north]

I've asked this before, but would like an answer from those 'in the know'. If OH deem an individual needs support and T* agree to the support, can the individual decide when the OH recommendations apply? e.g no heavy lifting for the employee, employee does overtime on heavy lifting job with no ill effects, back on contracted hours, employee can do no heavy lifting(as OH guidelines)

[oldfashionedplayer]

would be very silly of the employee to go by "heavy lifting on OT" but "no heavy lifting on contract" - That defeats the purpose? - Since its there as something to help, Reduced Heavy lifting overall, sure, but only on certain shifts? No that would be ridiculous for either party to partake under.

[Redshoes]

OH only give recommendations. They don't say things like "no heavy lifting" but they do say things like "might benefit from lighter duties". Jobs like click and collect are not generally seen as light duties as customers buy bulk heavy items and trays need to be stacked. This could depend on the size of your store but in a superstore it's often just one colleague working so they do the whole job.
Checkouts is generally seen as light duties but then it can come done to the hours you do or the job you do. You may be offered a role within checkouts but there may be a change to hours. We had one bakery colleague who went through OH and a move was agreed but colleague turned down because of hours. They had 5am starts in bakery and wanted to keep those hours in checkouts but the store does not open until 7am.
CSD and PFS are generally also seen as light duties but both these Depts are mostly single manned now and tend to be over hours. You can't increase hours in a dept that is already over but if you are moving from a dept that is over hours you are not changing things for the store other than where the over hours sit.
As OH are only recommendations they are not enforceable but if a big company like ours goes to court they will be asked why we can't find the hours so they really do have to try. If you are offered roles that you turn down this will be recorded as it has shown that they have listened and tried to accommodate.

[grim up north]

would be very silly of the employee to go by "heavy lifting on OT" but "no heavy lifting on contract" - That defeats the purpose? - Since its there as something to help, Reduced Heavy lifting overall, sure, but only on certain shifts? No that would be ridiculous for either party to partake under.

It's not that exact recommendation, but employees pick and chose when the OH support applies. I'd have thought it's duty of care too to ensure T* help the employee follow the report. Probably boils down to bad managers

[Cinderella]

OH only give recommendations. They don't say things like "no heavy lifting" but they do say things like "might benefit from lighter duties"

This is the problem I am facing. My manager says because the report doesn't say "can't do x, y and z" he can force me to do them. I've said over and over that OH doesn't make statements like that, but it's falling on deaf ears. The report was followed up until now!

[horatiocain]

The problem with OH recommended adjustments is that not doing them is almost always going to amount to disability discrimination via direct means of objective care.

In other words as you have been told its best to make these adjustments but refuse, you are doing something a reasonable person would not.

Reasonable adjustments are considered based upon the whole of tesco and its billions of pounds of profit, so cost is never a factor.

They can't make a job  but they can make a role for an existing of new colleague.

Anyone asking for adjustments by Tesco policy and therefore contractual agreement, should be referred to OH for advice  and while it is advice, not flowing it is a very risky manoeuvre amd likely breaches requirements under the equalities act.

[ForCryingOutLoud]

If the report has been followed 'up until now' that suggests that Tesco has supported you & that is all they need to be able to demonstrate  I'm afraid, unless the report was very specific with timescales. It is a temporary adjustment. As stated above, unless you have a recognised disability Tesco doesn't need to do any more.

[horatiocain]

That's entirely incorrect, a disability under the equalities act is a legal definition and not a medical one.
The legal definition is any physical or mental impairment lasting a year or more or likely to last a year or more which significantly effects your ability to do day to day things.  When making this determination the person is to be considered without medication or treatment so if someone requires daily medication its a good bet they meet the criteria.

Failure to make reasonable adjustments is direct discrimination, if OH suggest them and the company don't make them  you can then request them and if they refuse they'd have a very tough time showing they had complied with their legal obligation to make reasonable adjustment.

If that meant knocking the front of the building down so you could access the property then that would be reasonable for a company with the resources of Tesco.

Just because it's not necessarily permanent does not preclude it from being classified as a disability under the terms of the equalities act.  By making adjustments until now they've opened up the argument as to why?
If you were referred to OH it was because you had a long term sickness or underlying health conditions or you requested reasonable adjustments.

Tell them to read the policy for whichever one it was and follow it.

Failing that phone your union office to speak with your official and explain that you'd like to consider your legal options.

Remember it cost nothing to pursue a tribunal claim  and you'll be surprised how efficient a manager is once they know you've spoken with ACAS and are going to file an ET1 form.

[ForCryingOutLoud]

This is incorrect. You do not have to be taking medication to be classed as having a disability and it doesn't have to be something that lasts a year or more. For example, Cancer is classed as a disability.  You may not be taking medication daily and you may not have had it for a year or more but it is still recognised as a disability.  As per your post, individual cases are judged on their individual merits hence 'reasonable' adjustments. What is deemed as reasonable is where the matter becomes muddy since reasonable for one party may be perceived as unreasonable by someone else.

[horatiocain]

Rubbish, the legal definition of a disability means it must have a substantial and long term effect upon your life.

Substantial means it effects the way you live your life, I used someone needing medication as an example of someone who would have the substantial qualifier.
For example someone with medicated asthma would qualify for legal protection while someone without medication may not.
Secondly the term long term, which under the legislation LITERALLY means 12 months or more, this has been shown in several tests cases and a good deal of precedent has now been applied.
It doesn't have to have lasted 12 months,  ut must be expected to last a total of 12 months.

To be classified as disabled under the equalities act there are 2 provision.
Severe impairment.
Long term.

Cancer as in your post is an automatically qualifying condition, as are prevancerous conditions which could lead to cancer within 12 months if untreated.
So too is MS  HIV/AIDS severe sight impairment or a severe long term disfigurement.

The legal definition of reasonable is specific for these matter as they're judged only by the employers ability to make these adjustments compared with their comparative resources.

Asking Tes o to modify the entrance of a building is reasonable even if just for 1 person  because they make billions of pounds a year  asking the local newsagent who make 40,000 a year profit would likely not be reasonable.

It's pure cost to resources ratio, nothing about the individual opinion of a single person.
Is it reasonable for Tesco anyplace to make their entire building wheelchair accessible for a single employee at a cost of £100,000, the legal answer is yes  because Tesco made £2.56 Billion in a year.

So let's make an example.
A stock controller at a superstore is diagnosed with fibromyalgia.
They've been in pain for a year and suffering fatigue and brain fog for the past 10 months.
It is an incurable condition.
It is having a substantial effect on the colleague.
Are they disabled? Yes, under the law they certainly are.

They ask for the entrance to the store to be made wheelchair accessible and half their duties to be changed along with a change of hours so they work 3 days a week rather than 5
Are these reasonable asks?
The rota change is simple and the company can easily make this adjustment by creating a job share  it cost next to nothing  so Tesco must do it.
Can the stock controller now only perform computer desk based work  yes  while another stock controller now only performs the physical ruitines, adjusting a others duties is perfectly reasonable under both law and policy.
Does Tesco have to spend £100,000 making the whole building wheelchair accessible and purchasing specialist equipment so the disabled person can co tinge their role.
Yes they do  because the money is less than o.01% of the operating budget of the company, and the person qualifies.

The only argument Tesco could run if they refused was that the person wasn't disabled, which they'd lose in this case, these adjustments are reasonable.

And it isn't a hypothetical case, it's a real case where Tesco made these adjustment, not because it wanted to but because its required to.

[Redshoes]

OH only give recommendations. They don't say things like "no heavy lifting" but they do say things like "might benefit from lighter duties"

This is the problem I am facing. My manager says because the report doesn't say "can't do x, y and z" he can force me to do them. I've said over and over that OH doesn't make statements like that, but it's falling on deaf ears. The report was followed up until now!

You can do another oh referral. You are not limited to just one. If your condition is changing you can go back to oh or if your job has changed to suit recommendations you can go back. It sounds like adjustments were made for so long but have now gone back so I would suggest another referral. Questions can be asked, not sure the relationship you now seem to have with your manager would allow for this. I have not had a oh referral myself so I can't talk from your side of things but I think you should be able to mention the work adjustments that did seem to work for you.