Any advice very gratefully received...

Many people find they have problems at work with their current/potential employer not understanding their colitis. Please post here if you would like help or are experiencing issues.
magenta may
Active member
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 7:25 pm
What is your status: Colitis Sufferer
Date first diagnosed with IBD: 01 Jun 2009

Any advice very gratefully received...

Post by magenta may » Tue Mar 05, 2013 6:23 pm

Hi everyone,

I'm having real problems at work, I'd be so grateful for your advice. I'm a secondary teacher (part time) and have been diagnosed with ulcerative colitis for over three years now. I've tried a range of treatments but nothing really seems to work to keep me in remission. I'm currently taking Mercaptopurine, I couldn't tell you if it does anything at all, but my specialist insists that my only remaining option is surgery, which I really don't want at all.

My problem at work is management has changed lately. School used to be quite understanding of my illness and specifically the absences I have connected to it, but this is no longer the case. When I returned to work following a flare up and bereavement in October 2012 I was placed on a "supporting attendance" policy which says I MUST have less than five days off in the next 12 months. In the week before Christmas I caught flu, and as I was unable to get out of bed missed three days.

For the last half term I've been flaring up again, but dragging myself in so as to avoid taking time off. If I do hit the five day limit, I will be moved to "stage three" at which point apparently they can start procedures to dismiss me. I know I shouldn't go in ill, but I desperately need my job and absolutely can't face the stress of losing it. During the nightmarish last half term, I've been located nowhere near a loo despite repeated requests. Over half term itself (week before last) I was so ill that my G.P. wanted to admit me to hospital - but I felt forced to refuse, as I've been admitted before for lengthy stays, I just didn't feel I could take the risk of being kept in.

Thankfully, I'm now on week three of steroids, and just starting to feel a little better. This morning though, a letter landed on my doormat saying that I'm being placed on "informal capability procedures". I now feel as if I can't win. If I don't go in, I'll be sacked. If I go in and soldier on unwell, I'm not good enough, and risk losing my job anyway.

I have contacted my union, but although I like my rep very much and find him sympathetic, I'm worried that he might not be expert enough - after all, he AGREED to the "supporting attendance" measures when I returned to work last time. Should he have done this? It's put me under SO much pressure.

I've been combing through the forum looking for information, and have found lots of bits and pieces - thanks to Primus especially for the legal stuff - but I'm finding it really hard to actually work out the issues here in a concrete form. For example, I gather I can request to have disability related absence recorded separately. Fine, but what will that actually achieve in practice? I'll still be off, and presumably still subject to the "supporting attendance" procedure. I know I can ask them to make reasonable adjustments, but apart from moving me closer to a toilet, what might that entail?

I'm so sorry to ask for help - I really would resign if I could afford to, as I feel totally worthless there. But I can't afford not to work, and I can't see myself as an attractive package for any other employer at the moment either. Any advice / ideas / opinions would be very welcome.



User avatar
primus58
Power poster
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 10:19 pm
What is your status: Colitis Sufferer
Date first diagnosed with IBD: 01 Jun 1994
Location: London

Re: Any advice very gratefully received...

Post by primus58 » Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:42 am

magenta may wrote:Hi everyone,

I'm having real problems at work, I'd be so grateful for your advice. I'm a secondary teacher (part time) and have been diagnosed with ulcerative colitis for over three years now. I've tried a range of treatments but nothing really seems to work to keep me in remission. I'm currently taking Mercaptopurine, I couldn't tell you if it does anything at all, but my specialist insists that my only remaining option is surgery, which I really don't want at all.

My problem at work is management has changed lately. School used to be quite understanding of my illness and specifically the absences I have connected to it, but this is no longer the case. When I returned to work following a flare up and bereavement in October 2012 I was placed on a "supporting attendance" policy which says I MUST have less than five days off in the next 12 months. In the week before Christmas I caught flu, and as I was unable to get out of bed missed three days.
this would be 3 days normal sick absence
For the last half term I've been flaring up again, but dragging myself in so as to avoid taking time off. If I do hit the five day limit, I will be moved to "stage three" at which point apparently they can start procedures to dismiss me. I know I shouldn't go in ill, but I desperately need my job and absolutely can't face the stress of losing it. During the nightmarish last half term, I've been located nowhere near a loo despite repeated requests. Over half term itself (week before last) I was so ill that my G.P. wanted to admit me to hospital - but I felt forced to refuse, as I've been admitted before for lengthy stays, I just didn't feel I could take the risk of being kept in.
And this would be Disability-Related sick absence
Thankfully, I'm now on week three of steroids, and just starting to feel a little better. This morning though, a letter landed on my doormat saying that I'm being placed on "informal capability procedures". I now feel as if I can't win. If I don't go in, I'll be sacked. If I go in and soldier on unwell, I'm not good enough, and risk losing my job anyway.
Does your new management recognise your disability...?
I have contacted my union, but although I like my rep very much and find him sympathetic, I'm worried that he might not be expert enough - after all, he AGREED to the "supporting attendance" measures when I returned to work last time. Should he have done this? It's put me under SO much pressure.
These supporting attendance" measures... is there any distiction between normal sick & disability-related sick...?
I've been combing through the forum looking for information, and have found lots of bits and pieces - thanks to Primus especially for the legal stuff - but I'm finding it really hard to actually work out the issues here in a concrete form. For example, I gather I can request to have disability related absence recorded separately. Fine, but what will that actually achieve in practice? I'll still be off, and presumably still subject to the "supporting attendance" procedure. I know I can ask them to make reasonable adjustments, but apart from moving me closer to a toilet, what might that entail?
by law your employer should put reasonable adjustments in place to avoid discrimination.
Equality Act 2010
15 Discrimination arising from disability.
___ (1)A person (A) discriminates against a disabled person (B) if— .
______ (a)A treats B unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of B's disability, and .
______ (b)A cannot show that the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. .
___ (2)Subsection (1) does not apply if A shows that A did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that B had the disability.
Adjustments for disabled persons
20 Duty to make adjustments
___ (1) Where this Act imposes a duty to make reasonable adjustments on a person, this section, sections 21 and 22 and the applicable Schedule apply; and for those purposes, a person on whom the duty is imposed is referred to as A.
___ (2) The duty comprises the following three requirements.
___ (3) The first requirement is a requirement, where a provision, criterion or practice of A’s puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage.
___ (4) The second requirement is a requirement, where a physical feature puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage.
___ (5) The third requirement is a requirement, where a disabled person would, but for the provision of an auxiliary aid, be put at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to provide the auxiliary aid.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/201 ... 015_en.pdf
Is this being followed...?
I'm so sorry to ask for help - I really would resign if I could afford to, as I feel totally worthless there. But I can't afford not to work, and I can't see myself as an attractive package for any other employer at the moment either. Any advice / ideas / opinions would be very welcome.
Ask your employer for a copy of the reasonable adjustments they have in place for your disability...?

If you haven't already, read this viewtopic.php?f=39&t=6420


Ulcerative Colitis... just add a pinch of Humour and you'll be fine!

I work for the Ministry of Justice, and am currently the Membership Co-Ordinator for my department's Disability Network... and I am also Union Disability Rep...

magenta may
Active member
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 7:25 pm
What is your status: Colitis Sufferer
Date first diagnosed with IBD: 01 Jun 2009

Re: Any advice very gratefully received...

Post by magenta may » Wed Mar 06, 2013 9:53 pm

Hi Primus - thanks SO MUCH for your helpful reply (and so early in the morning! :D ) - essentially the answer to all your questions is... NO!

I have a meeting next Thursday morning with my union rep in attendance. I'm going to print off your reply and take it with me. My rep is willing, but a little bit dubious - he says he agrees to the legal requirements - but at the same time, school is a business and has to consider the impact of my absences on the service provided, so he's not sure what the outcome will be. I've kind of reached a point of not caring - I was really upset, but I made myself so ill last half term trying to meet their (illegal?) requirements on my attendance that I can't bring myself to think it would be the end of the world if I'm sacked. I'll let you know what happens. :great:



User avatar
primus58
Power poster
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 10:19 pm
What is your status: Colitis Sufferer
Date first diagnosed with IBD: 01 Jun 1994
Location: London

Re: Any advice very gratefully received...

Post by primus58 » Thu Mar 07, 2013 11:44 pm

£41,000 payout for Kinson teacher who suffered discrimination
http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/9 ... imination/


In November 2010 she was called to a meeting to discuss her “continued unacceptable level of sickness”, the tribunal in Southampton was told.

Based on this extract, this case was an Equality Act case of Disability Discrimination


Ulcerative Colitis... just add a pinch of Humour and you'll be fine!

I work for the Ministry of Justice, and am currently the Membership Co-Ordinator for my department's Disability Network... and I am also Union Disability Rep...

magenta may
Active member
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 7:25 pm
What is your status: Colitis Sufferer
Date first diagnosed with IBD: 01 Jun 2009

Re: Any advice very gratefully received...

Post by magenta may » Mon Mar 11, 2013 1:52 pm

Hi Primus,

thanks for the example - I'm feeling more confident now (I think - not looking forward to the meeting on Thursday though :cry: ). Can I be really cheeky and ask you to clarify something for me - WHY exactly is it reasonable for them to treat my disability related absences separately? I'm reading around the thing and this seems like a grey area - I understand that it is in the Equality Act, but it seems like they only have to do this IF IT IS REASONABLE. I think the doubts my union rep is having relate to this - they will say that their legitimate aim in continuing to place me under the "supporting attendance" measure is to ensure uninterrupted delivery of education to the students. I think this is called "objective justification".

Once again, I am SO SO grateful for your help, I think at this point I'd be ready to give them what they clearly want and just resign if it wasn't for you!

Magenta



User avatar
primus58
Power poster
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 10:19 pm
What is your status: Colitis Sufferer
Date first diagnosed with IBD: 01 Jun 1994
Location: London

Re: Any advice very gratefully received...

Post by primus58 » Tue Mar 12, 2013 12:31 am

I tried to keep it short...but I failed...

This law http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011 ... tents/made enforces this http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uplo ... ercode.pdf ISBN: 9780108509735

Equality Act 2010 Code of Practice on Employment

Purpose of the Code
1.9

The main purpose of this Code is to provide a detailed explanation of the Act. This will assist courts and tribunals when interpreting the law and help lawyers, advisers, trade union representatives, human resources departments and others who need to apply the law and understand its technical detail.

Discrimination arising from disability
How does it differ from direct discrimination?
5.3

Direct discrimination occurs when the employer treats someone less favourably because of disability itself (see Chapter 3). By contrast, in discrimination arising from disability, the question is whether the disabled person has been treated unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of their disability.
Example:
An employer dismisses a worker because she has had three months’ sick leave. The employer is aware that the worker has multiple sclerosis and most of her sick leave is disability-related. The employer’s decision to dismiss is not because of the worker’s disability itself. However, the worker has been treated unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of her disability (namely, the need to take a period of disability-related sick leave).
Is a comparator required?
5.6

Both direct and indirect discrimination require a comparative exercise. But in considering discrimination arising from disability, there is no need to compare a disabled person’s treatment with that of another person. It is only necessary to demonstrate that the unfavourable treatment is because of something arising in consequence of the disability.
Example:
In considering whether the example of the disabled worker dismissed for disability-related sickness absence (see paragraph 5.3) amounts to discrimination arising from disability, it is irrelevant whether or not other workers would have been dismissed for having the same or similar length of absence. It is not necessary to compare the treatment of the disabled worker with that of her colleagues or any hypothetical comparator. The decision to dismiss her will be discrimination arising from disability if the employer cannot objectively justify it.
What is ‘unfavourable treatment’?
5.7

For discrimination arising from disability to occur, a disabled person must have been treated ‘unfavourably’. This means that he or she must have been put at a disadvantage. Often, the disadvantage will be obvious and it will be clear that the treatment has been unfavourable; for example, a person may have been refused a job, denied a work opportunity or dismissed from their employment. But sometimes unfavourable treatment may be less obvious. Even if an employer thinks that they are acting in the best interests of a disabled person, they may still treat that person unfavourably.
s.15(1)(a)

What does ‘something arising in consequence of disability’ mean?
5.8

The unfavourable treatment must be because of something that arises in consequence of the disability. This means that there must be a connection between whatever led to the unfavourable treatment and the disability.
s.15(1)(a)
5.9
The consequences of a disability include anything which is the result, effect or outcome of a disabled person’s disability. The consequences will be varied, and will depend on the individual effect upon a disabled person of their disability. Some consequences may be obvious, such as an inability to walk unaided or inability to use certain work equipment. Others may not be obvious, for example, having to follow a restricted diet.

When can discrimination arising from disability be justified?
5.11

Unfavourable treatment will not amount to discrimination arising from disability if the employer can show that the treatment is a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’. This ‘objective justification’ test is explained in detail in paragraphs 4.25 to 4.32.
5.12
It is for the employer to justify the treatment. They must produce evidence to support their assertion that it is justified and not rely on mere generalisations.

Relevance of reasonable adjustments
5.20

Employers can often prevent unfavourable treatment which would amount to discrimination arising from disability by taking prompt action to identify and implement reasonable adjustments (see Chapter 6).
5.21
If an employer has failed to make a reasonable adjustment which would have prevented or minimised the unfavourable treatment, it will be very difficult for them to show that the treatment was objectively justified.
5.22
Even where an employer has complied with a duty to make reasonable adjustments in relation to the disabled person, they may still subject a disabled person to unlawful discrimination arising from disability. This is likely to apply where, for example, the adjustment is unrelated to the particular treatment complained of.
Example:
The employer in the example at paragraph 5.3 made a reasonable adjustment for the worker who has multiple sclerosis. They adjusted her working hours so that she started work at 9.30am instead of 9am.

However, this adjustment is not relevant to the unfavourable treatment – namely, her dismissal for disability-related sickness absence – which her claim concerns. And so, despite the fact that reasonable adjustments were made, there will still be discrimination arising from disability unless the treatment is justified.
When can a provision, criterion or practice be objectively justified?
4.25

If the person applying a provision, criterion or practice can show that it is ‘a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’, then it will not amount to indirect discrimination. This is often known as the ‘objective justification’ test. The test applies to other areas of discrimination law; for example, direct discrimination because of age (see paragraphs 3.36 to 3.41) and
discrimination arising from disability (see Chapter 5).
4.26
If challenged in the Employment Tribunal, it is for the employer to justify the provision, criterion or practice. So it is up to the employer to produce evidence to support their assertion that it is justified. Generalisations will not be sufficient to provide justification. It is not necessary for that justification to have been fully set out at the time the provision, criterion or practice was applied. If challenged, the employer can set out the justification to the Employment Tribunal.
4.27
The question of whether the provision, criterion or practice is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim should be approached in two stages:
• Is the aim of the provision, criterion or practice legal and nondiscriminatory, and one that represents a real, objective consideration?
• If the aim is legitimate, is the means of achieving it proportionate – that is, appropriate and necessary in all the circumstances?

What is a legitimate aim?
4.28

The concept of ‘legitimate aim’ is taken from European Union (EU) law and relevant decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) – formerly the European Court of Justice (ECJ). However, it is not defined by the Act. The aim of the provision, criterion or practice should be legal, should not be discriminatory in itself, and must represent a real, objective consideration. The health, welfare and safety of individuals may qualify as legitimate aims provided that risks are clearly specified and supported by evidence.
4.29
Although reasonable business needs and economic efficiency may be legitimate aims, an employer solely aiming to reduce costs cannot expect to satisfy the test. For example, the employer cannot simply argue that to discriminate is cheaper than avoiding discrimination.
Example:
Solely as a cost-saving measure, an employer requires all staff to work a full day on Fridays, so that customer orders can all be processed on the same day of the week. The policy puts observant Jewish workers at a particular disadvantage in the winter months by preventing them from going home early to observe the Sabbath, and could amount to indirect discrimination unless it can be objectively justified. The single aim of reducing costs is not a legitimate one; the employer cannot just argue that to discriminate is cheaper than avoiding discrimination.
What is proportionate?
4.30
Even if the aim is a legitimate one, the means of achieving it must be proportionate. Deciding whether the means used to achieve the legitimate aim are proportionate involves a balancing exercise. An Employment Tribunal may wish to conduct a proper evaluation of the discriminatory effect of the provision, criterion or practice as against the employer’s reasons for applying it, taking into account all the relevant facts.
4.31
Although not defined by the Act, the term ‘proportionate’ is taken from EU Directives and its meaning has been clarified by decisions of the CJEU (formerly the ECJ). EU law views treatment as proportionate if it is an ‘appropriate and necessary’ means of achieving a legitimate aim. But ‘necessary’ does not mean that the provision, criterion or practice is the only possible way of achieving the legitimate aim; it is sufficient that the same aim could not be achieved by less discriminatory means.
4.32
The greater financial cost of using a less discriminatory approach cannot, by itself, provide a justification for applying a particular provision, criterion or practice. Cost can only be taken into account as part of the employer’s justification for the provision, criterion or practice if there are other good reasons for adopting it.
Example:
A food manufacturer has a rule that beards are forbidden for people working on the factory floor. Unless it can be objectively justified, this rule may amount to indirect religion or belief discrimination against the Sikh and Muslim workers in the factory. If the aim of the rule is to meet food hygiene or health and safety requirements, this would be legitimate. However, the employer would need to show that the ban on beards is a proportionate means of achieving this aim. When considering whether the policy is justified, the Employment Tribunal is likely to examine closely the reasons given by the employer as to why they cannot fulfil the same food hygiene or health and safety obligations by less discriminatory means, for example by providing a beard mask or snood.
Can failure to make a reasonable adjustment ever be justified?
6.30

The Act does not permit an employer to justify a failure to comply with a duty to make a reasonable adjustment. However, an employer will only breach such a duty if the adjustment in question is one which it is reasonable for the employer to have to make. So, where the duty applies, it is the question of ‘reasonableness’ which alone determines whether the adjustment has to be made.


Ulcerative Colitis... just add a pinch of Humour and you'll be fine!

I work for the Ministry of Justice, and am currently the Membership Co-Ordinator for my department's Disability Network... and I am also Union Disability Rep...

magenta may
Active member
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 7:25 pm
What is your status: Colitis Sufferer
Date first diagnosed with IBD: 01 Jun 2009

Re: Any advice very gratefully received...

Post by magenta may » Sat Mar 23, 2013 10:51 am

Hi Primus,

sorry for the delay in getting back to you - the meeting was delayed...and not very helpful...

My room has been moved back downstairs, which is something at least. I'm not CLOSE to a loo,, but I am CLOSER! :party:

Other than that, the answers were deliberately (I think) vague. I printed and took in with me a wealth of information including the NACC leaflet for employers, but to be honest I'm not sure it will even get looked at. They will NOT tell me that they are recording or treating the disability related absence separately, but they encourage me to follow my doctor's advice - if I'm told not to go on, then I shouldn't - but I am still subject to the "Supporting absence" procedure. The upshot of which seems to be, if, you're off, you're off, and we'll deal with it then. My union rep did advise me not to worry about it, as this meant I'd likely have a good case at tribunal if they did decide to dismiss me. Which is fine in it's own way, but creates a stressful situation in itself - because I'm not sure I can handle the stress of going to a tribunal, I'm still left worried about what will happen on top of being ill, if and when I flare up again!

Sooo...on balance, the result of this, I think, is that I'm looking to get out of this job. I'm not happy there anyway, and I'm starting to wonder if education as an employment area isn't just too much stress for my condition anyway - OFSTED, behaviour, and so on. I know all jobs are stressful to some extent, and that not everyone agrees that stress is a factor in colitis, but I know the two go hand in hand for me - and I'm not 'married to the job' the way a lot of teachers are, and don't consider it worth my health. The only issues are: 1. finding something else to pay the bills and 2. finding an employer who is prepared to look past the whopping amount of sick time I've had - simple really! :D

Thanks again for all your advice. It really helped to feel that I was going into the meeting as well informed as possible, even if no-one else wanted to hear.



Karencraig
Power poster
Posts: 1596
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2011 9:51 am
What is your status: Colitis Sufferer
Date first diagnosed with IBD: 08 Jan 2010
Location: Rochdale Lancs

Re: Any advice very gratefully received...

Post by Karencraig » Mon Mar 25, 2013 5:01 pm

So what does "supporting abscence" actually support you with? Apart from telling you off?!?

Have you been referrred to occupational health? I found that extremely supportive when I was sent.

You can contact Equality commission directly who will answer questions specifically to you. email englandhelpline@equalityhumanrights.com

If an illness is under the disability discrimination act, any abscence is recorded, but shouldnt be taken into account for monitoring purposes.


EX UC sufferer,surgery on 1 March 2012!!! Marvin (Stoma) became my life enhancer.

User avatar
primus58
Power poster
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 10:19 pm
What is your status: Colitis Sufferer
Date first diagnosed with IBD: 01 Jun 1994
Location: London

Re: Any advice very gratefully received...

Post by primus58 » Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:42 am

Karencraig wrote:...If an illness is under the disability discrimination act, any abscence is recorded, but shouldnt be taken into account for monitoring purposes.
Equality Act 2010 Code of Practice on Employment

Avoiding discrimination during employment
Sickness and absence from work
17.16

Sickness and absence from work may be governed by contractual terms and conditions and/or may be the subject of non-contractual practices and procedures. Regardless of the nature of these policies, it is important to ensure that they are non-discriminatory in design, and applied to workers who are sick or absent for whatever reason without discrimination of any kind. This is particularly important when a policy has discretionary elements such as decisions about stopping sick pay or commencing attendance management procedures.

Disability-related absences
17.20

Employers are not automatically obliged to disregard all disability-related sickness absences, but they must disregard some or all of the absences by way of an adjustment if this is reasonable. If an employer takes action against a disabled worker for disability-related sickness absence, this may amount to discrimination arising from disability (see Chapter 5).
Example:
During a six-month period, a man who has recently developed a long-term health condition has a number of short periods of absence from work as he learns to manage this condition. Ignoring these periods of disability-related absence is likely to be a reasonable adjustment for the employer to make. Disciplining this man because of these periods of absence will amount to discrimination arising from disability, if the employer cannot show that this is objectively justified.
Termination of employment
19.5

Where an employer is considering dismissing a worker who is disabled, they should consider what reasonable adjustments need to be made to the dismissal process (see Chapter 6). In addition, the employer should consider whether the reason for dismissal is connected to or in consequence of the worker’s disability. If it is, dismissing the worker will amount to discrimination arising from disability unless it can be objectively justified. In these circumstances, an employer should consider whether dismissal is an appropriate sanction to impose.
Example:
A disabled worker periodically requires a limited amount of time off work to attend medical appointments related to the disability. The employer has an attendance management policy which results in potential warnings and ultimately dismissal if the worker’s absence exceeds 20 days in any 12-month period. A combination of the worker’s time off for disability-related medical appointments and general time off for sickness results in the worker consistently exceeding the 20 day limit by a few days. The worker receives a series of warnings and is eventually dismissed. This is likely to amount to disability discrimination.
19.6
Based on the facts in the example above, it is very likely to have been a reasonable adjustment for the employer to ignore the absences arising out of the worker’s disability or increase the trigger points that would invoke the attendance policy. By making one or both of these adjustments, the employer could have avoided the possibility of claims for both a failure to make adjustments and discrimination arising from disability.


Ulcerative Colitis... just add a pinch of Humour and you'll be fine!

I work for the Ministry of Justice, and am currently the Membership Co-Ordinator for my department's Disability Network... and I am also Union Disability Rep...

magenta may
Active member
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 7:25 pm
What is your status: Colitis Sufferer
Date first diagnosed with IBD: 01 Jun 2009

Re: Any advice very gratefully received...

Post by magenta may » Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:09 pm

Hi guys,
Karen, if I'm absolutely honest, I can't see how the 'supporting absence' procedure is at all supportive! The booklet I have just explains what happens at each trigger point, and gives a suggested format for the required meetings. I have been to Occ. Health loads of times, initially they were sort of nonplussed as to what school wanted - the reports more or less say "she has ulcerative colitis, the nature of which is, it flares up at times and at these times she will be ill." Lhast time though, was just before I returned to work after my Grandad died and I'd had a massive flare up, the woman was really quite unpleasant and unsupportive. She told me in no uncertain terms that I had to stop being off. I was offered counselling for my bereavement - but I'm not really a massive believer in that - not so soon anyway. Grief is supposed to hurt, I think, and the way to get though it is to go through it - trying to make it go away or stop it hurting seems like a recipie forproblems later on. Just my opinion :-)
And Primus, I'm assuming that the thinking is based on the interpretation of 'reasonable' - they say it's not reasonable to discount my absencesand they are willing to risk going to tribunal. My union rep is thinking that if it went to tribunal, I'd have a good case. Either way, it seems that I work in a place that doesn't recognise my disability and considers itself above the law. Time for me to exit with all speed, I think.

Please excuse my mistakes here, I'm typing on my phone, and I'm not very good at it!



Post Reply