Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

07-07-20, 03:43PM

Login with username, password and session length


  • Total Members: 6410
  • Latest: Le88aa
  • Total Posts: 46829
  • Total Topics: 945
  • Online Today: 102
  • Online Ever: 483
  • (25-02-20, 02:44PM)
Users Online

Author Topic: Reasonable Adjustments!  (Read 5087 times)


  • VLH Supporter
  • Smart Arse
  • ******
  • Posts: 554
Re: Reasonable Adjustments!
« Reply #25 on: 12-11-19, 09:50AM »
It makes me laugh that no one seems to read the sentence where firefly stated they are not stock control lol

Long gone

  • Regular Pain
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
Re: Reasonable Adjustments!
« Reply #26 on: 12-11-19, 12:16PM »


  • Smart Arse
  • *****
  • Posts: 919
Re: Reasonable Adjustments!
« Reply #27 on: 12-11-19, 02:28PM »
From a loss of earnings perspective, if the OP is a full time SC, if Tesco has a role which would suit him but  would mean a drop in his pay, would that be considered a "reasonable adjustment" if a worker was forced to lose hours, in some scenarios that could trigger a redundancy situation.

As long as he is able to fulfil his role with the exception of bottom shelves, Tesco is obliged to accomodate that, to not do so walks on the thin line of breaching the 2010 equalities act.

I don't agree. The result of this is that someone else has to pick up that other part of the role, as in bottom shelf, so it's two people sharing a role. If the store is able to support this its all good but if not it becomes a problem. An adjustment passport is the right way to go but the ongoing issue of the other part of the role could have been agreed for short term, until something else came up, until health improved etc. If it was agreed for longer term, ongoing, then the store have to live with decision made. If ongoing and health is getting worse, can you then ask not to do bottom two shelves. Then bottom three, how far can this go. I sympathise and I think it's right that the company does try and support but I don't think they should be forced to pay someone to do a job they are unable to do. If they do for one they need to do for others, up and down the country in hundreds of stores.

It's in the name "reasonable adjustment" , it goes both ways, not being able to bend down to reach the bottom shelf is a common consequence of many medical maladies, obviously if the impact to being able to perform the role is more significant, then exempting the afflicted from the additional roles wouldn't be reasonable and the company needs to go in a different direction, whichever process they decide to follow though still needs to comply with the 2010 equalities act.


SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk