Mixing
I refused work due to an injury, I was threatened with disciplinary?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
8
down vote
favorite
I have an injury that happened outside of work - an infected toe. I am on antibiotics. I can walk but it is very painful.
The job I normally do is standing all day so I was told to move to another area, which involves walking constantly for the next 10 hours. I refused this work because it was unreasonable, I was then told I am unfit for work, and I should go home. I told my employer they can send me home but they would still have to pay me. They then threatened me with disciplinary action, and then said if I stayed inside the building and still refuse the work they would take me off the clock.
- Failed to make reasonable adjustments for 1 day
- Threatened with disciplinary
- Told I was unfit for work but would not send me home
- I am fit to work just need adjustments for one day
Are they wrong to act like this?
human-resources united-kingdom employment
edited 4 mins ago
Tim
604618
asked 6 hours ago
qwerty1234
4412
New contributor
qwerty1234 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
 |Â
show 9 more comments
up vote
8
down vote
favorite
I have an injury that happened outside of work - an infected toe. I am on antibiotics. I can walk but it is very painful.
The job I normally do is standing all day so I was told to move to another area, which involves walking constantly for the next 10 hours. I refused this work because it was unreasonable, I was then told I am unfit for work, and I should go home. I told my employer they can send me home but they would still have to pay me. They then threatened me with disciplinary action, and then said if I stayed inside the building and still refuse the work they would take me off the clock.
- Failed to make reasonable adjustments for 1 day
- Threatened with disciplinary
- Told I was unfit for work but would not send me home
- I am fit to work just need adjustments for one day
Are they wrong to act like this?
human-resources united-kingdom employment
edited 4 mins ago
Tim
604618
asked 6 hours ago
qwerty1234
4412
New contributor
qwerty1234 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
10
Are you a member of a union?
– Joe Strazzere
6 hours ago
3
If they are still available, you might want to run this question by your local union rep.
– Joe Strazzere
6 hours ago
2
Did you inform your supervisor of your injury and reduced mobility at the start of the shift?
– AdzzzUK
5 hours ago
5
failed to make reasonable adjustments for 1 dayWhat makes you think they have to?
– Dan
5 hours ago
7
If you are unable to do your job you should go home, that's not a debate. Wether you still get paid depends on your contract, if you're paid a salary it won't change if you have a sick day (Not 100% sure that's true everywhere), if you're paid hourly it makes sense to not pay you when you're sick.
– kevin
3 hours ago
 |Â
show 9 more comments
up vote
8
down vote
favorite
up vote
8
down vote
favorite
I have an injury that happened outside of work - an infected toe. I am on antibiotics. I can walk but it is very painful.
The job I normally do is standing all day so I was told to move to another area, which involves walking constantly for the next 10 hours. I refused this work because it was unreasonable, I was then told I am unfit for work, and I should go home. I told my employer they can send me home but they would still have to pay me. They then threatened me with disciplinary action, and then said if I stayed inside the building and still refuse the work they would take me off the clock.
- Failed to make reasonable adjustments for 1 day
- Threatened with disciplinary
- Told I was unfit for work but would not send me home
- I am fit to work just need adjustments for one day
Are they wrong to act like this?
human-resources united-kingdom employment
edited 4 mins ago
Tim
604618
asked 6 hours ago
qwerty1234
4412
New contributor
qwerty1234 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I have an injury that happened outside of work - an infected toe. I am on antibiotics. I can walk but it is very painful.
The job I normally do is standing all day so I was told to move to another area, which involves walking constantly for the next 10 hours. I refused this work because it was unreasonable, I was then told I am unfit for work, and I should go home. I told my employer they can send me home but they would still have to pay me. They then threatened me with disciplinary action, and then said if I stayed inside the building and still refuse the work they would take me off the clock.
- Failed to make reasonable adjustments for 1 day
- Threatened with disciplinary
- Told I was unfit for work but would not send me home
- I am fit to work just need adjustments for one day
Are they wrong to act like this?
human-resources united-kingdom employment
human-resources united-kingdom employment
edited 4 mins ago
Tim
604618
asked 6 hours ago
qwerty1234
4412
New contributor
qwerty1234 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 4 mins ago
Tim
604618
asked 6 hours ago
qwerty1234
4412
New contributor
qwerty1234 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 4 mins ago
Tim
604618
edited 4 mins ago
Tim
604618
edited 4 mins ago
Tim
604618
604618
asked 6 hours ago
qwerty1234
4412
New contributor
qwerty1234 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 6 hours ago
qwerty1234
4412
asked 6 hours ago
qwerty1234
4412
4412
New contributor
qwerty1234 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
qwerty1234 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
qwerty1234 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
10
Are you a member of a union?
– Joe Strazzere
6 hours ago
3
If they are still available, you might want to run this question by your local union rep.
– Joe Strazzere
6 hours ago
2
Did you inform your supervisor of your injury and reduced mobility at the start of the shift?
– AdzzzUK
5 hours ago
5
failed to make reasonable adjustments for 1 dayWhat makes you think they have to?
– Dan
5 hours ago
7
If you are unable to do your job you should go home, that's not a debate. Wether you still get paid depends on your contract, if you're paid a salary it won't change if you have a sick day (Not 100% sure that's true everywhere), if you're paid hourly it makes sense to not pay you when you're sick.
– kevin
3 hours ago
 |Â
show 9 more comments
10
Are you a member of a union?
– Joe Strazzere
6 hours ago
3
If they are still available, you might want to run this question by your local union rep.
– Joe Strazzere
6 hours ago
2
Did you inform your supervisor of your injury and reduced mobility at the start of the shift?
– AdzzzUK
5 hours ago
5
failed to make reasonable adjustments for 1 dayWhat makes you think they have to?
– Dan
5 hours ago
7
If you are unable to do your job you should go home, that's not a debate. Wether you still get paid depends on your contract, if you're paid a salary it won't change if you have a sick day (Not 100% sure that's true everywhere), if you're paid hourly it makes sense to not pay you when you're sick.
– kevin
3 hours ago
10
10
Are you a member of a union?
– Joe Strazzere
6 hours ago
Are you a member of a union?
– Joe Strazzere
6 hours ago
3
3
If they are still available, you might want to run this question by your local union rep.
– Joe Strazzere
6 hours ago
If they are still available, you might want to run this question by your local union rep.
– Joe Strazzere
6 hours ago
2
2
Did you inform your supervisor of your injury and reduced mobility at the start of the shift?
– AdzzzUK
5 hours ago
Did you inform your supervisor of your injury and reduced mobility at the start of the shift?
– AdzzzUK
5 hours ago
5
5
failed to make reasonable adjustments for 1 day What makes you think they have to?– Dan
5 hours ago
failed to make reasonable adjustments for 1 day What makes you think they have to?– Dan
5 hours ago
7
7
If you are unable to do your job you should go home, that's not a debate. Wether you still get paid depends on your contract, if you're paid a salary it won't change if you have a sick day (Not 100% sure that's true everywhere), if you're paid hourly it makes sense to not pay you when you're sick.
– kevin
3 hours ago
If you are unable to do your job you should go home, that's not a debate. Wether you still get paid depends on your contract, if you're paid a salary it won't change if you have a sick day (Not 100% sure that's true everywhere), if you're paid hourly it makes sense to not pay you when you're sick.
– kevin
3 hours ago
 |Â
show 9 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
23
down vote
Sorry this isn't going to be the answer you wanted..
told I was unfit for work but would not send me home
and
I am fit to work just need adjustments for one day.
You're unfit for work through injury/illness not resulting from work activities so should really be following whatever the sickness policy is for your company. The work they requested of you sounds reasonable (something like an office or retail worker being asked to take a 10 mile hike over mountainous terrain when that is couldn't be foreseen as part of the job would be an example of "unreasonable" - just walking around another area of the facility isn't I'm afraid) and you refused to do it. You haven't "shown willing" and therefore the onus is on you to declare yourself sick and leave.
I'm assuming here that your goal in asking to be sent home is to be eligible for pay (also assuming that your employer doesn't offer sick pay beyond Statutory Sick Pay), unfortunately this doesn't apply in your situation as it is you that refused duties first. If (for example) you had agreed to do the work assigned and they had said to you "this isn't working, you can hardly walk - go home!" then it would have counted as you having shown willing and they would have had to pay you (unless you are on a zero-hour contract).
If you have been sick for 4 consecutive days or more (including non-working days) then you are eligible for SSP and can claim that for up to 28 weeks (although it is not paid for the first 3 days).
If your company does provide company sick pay (a.k.a. an "occupational scheme") then check your contract for any conditions that need to be followed (such as reporting methods, deadlines and quantity limits) and if you can meet those then then go home, put your feet up and recuperate! That's what it's there for.
failed to make reasonable adjustments for 1 day
They are under no obligation to do so, the legal obligations around making "reasonable adjustments" applies in the case of disability, pregnancy (during and after), and long-term health conditions such as arthritis - not because you're sick and injured.
threatened with disciplinary
Are you really surprised by this? You've behaved insubordinately, made unreasonable demands and tried to make your sickness/injury their problem. I'm surprised it's only at the "threat" stage to be honest!
Are they wrong to act like this?
Nope, sorry!
answered 5 hours ago
motosubatsu
34.7k1588142
4
It sounds like they threatened not to pay op if they went home sick. I suspect they would need to by law so your answer is incomplete at best. Or just wrong.
– Nobody
5 hours ago
@Nobody I've added more info to address the question of pay.
– motosubatsu
5 hours ago
+1. Too bad because I guess OP might have wanted to save the company money by not taking sick days since part of the work could have been done. I've been in this situation before and first thing I did was telling my manager about my condition and ask him if he preferred me to take sick days, or work in a limited way. Perhaps legally borderline, but we were both happy at the end.
– Tim
3 hours ago
16
Seriously? Refusing to walk 10 hours with an infected toe is "refusing duties"?! I would call that malice on the side of the employer, deliberately assigning replacement work that is worse than the usual job. Walking puts more strains on your toes than standing.
– MSalters
3 hours ago
1
@MSalters I don't disagree that walking is harder on toes than standing (I've broken a toe or two in my time!) but the question is whether it's unreasonable for the employer to give the OP duties that involve walking vs standing. Without knowing the exact nature of the OP's job I can't say for sure but I'd be surprised if it were. And if they aren't considered "unreasonable" in the context of his job then ultimately yes that would be classed as "refusing duties". You don't know that the employer acted maliciously or that the assignment of this other work had anything to do with his toe. [cont]
– motosubatsu
2 hours ago
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
5
down vote
If you refer to the ACAS page on Reasonable adjustments in the workplace, you'll find (unfortunately for you) that employers in the UK are only required to make these adjustments for workers with disabilities - and makes no mention of (presumably short-term) sickness or injury.
As such, their determination that you were "unfit for work" seems to have been justified (at least technically), so it appears that they've done nothing illegal.
I'm not entirely clear on the events you describe around being told that you're unfit for work, as first you write
told I am unfit for work, and I should go home
but then
told I was unfit for work but would not send me home
With the limited info you've given it looks to me as though you were expected to "take a sick day", and whether or not that would be paid time off depends your entitlement to statutory sick pay.
Superficially is does seem that they were somewhat unreasonable in asking you to do this other job involving some walking when your normal job is just standing, but you haven't shared much around this so there might be other factors at play here ...
answered 5 hours ago
brhans
1,9801119
you're correct - reasonable adjustments are applicable only to those considered "disabled" for work purposes. This can include physical and mental health conditions and it doesn't need to be permanent but it does need to be long term and leave the individual at a significant disadvantage for either obtaining to retaining employment
– motosubatsu
4 hours ago
@MartinBonner - yep - I'm getting my employment geography confused. Better now?
– brhans
2 hours ago
Much better - thanks.
– Martin Bonner
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
23
down vote
Sorry this isn't going to be the answer you wanted..
told I was unfit for work but would not send me home
and
I am fit to work just need adjustments for one day.
You're unfit for work through injury/illness not resulting from work activities so should really be following whatever the sickness policy is for your company. The work they requested of you sounds reasonable (something like an office or retail worker being asked to take a 10 mile hike over mountainous terrain when that is couldn't be foreseen as part of the job would be an example of "unreasonable" - just walking around another area of the facility isn't I'm afraid) and you refused to do it. You haven't "shown willing" and therefore the onus is on you to declare yourself sick and leave.
I'm assuming here that your goal in asking to be sent home is to be eligible for pay (also assuming that your employer doesn't offer sick pay beyond Statutory Sick Pay), unfortunately this doesn't apply in your situation as it is you that refused duties first. If (for example) you had agreed to do the work assigned and they had said to you "this isn't working, you can hardly walk - go home!" then it would have counted as you having shown willing and they would have had to pay you (unless you are on a zero-hour contract).
If you have been sick for 4 consecutive days or more (including non-working days) then you are eligible for SSP and can claim that for up to 28 weeks (although it is not paid for the first 3 days).
If your company does provide company sick pay (a.k.a. an "occupational scheme") then check your contract for any conditions that need to be followed (such as reporting methods, deadlines and quantity limits) and if you can meet those then then go home, put your feet up and recuperate! That's what it's there for.
failed to make reasonable adjustments for 1 day
They are under no obligation to do so, the legal obligations around making "reasonable adjustments" applies in the case of disability, pregnancy (during and after), and long-term health conditions such as arthritis - not because you're sick and injured.
threatened with disciplinary
Are you really surprised by this? You've behaved insubordinately, made unreasonable demands and tried to make your sickness/injury their problem. I'm surprised it's only at the "threat" stage to be honest!
Are they wrong to act like this?
Nope, sorry!
answered 5 hours ago
motosubatsu
34.7k1588142
4
It sounds like they threatened not to pay op if they went home sick. I suspect they would need to by law so your answer is incomplete at best. Or just wrong.
– Nobody
5 hours ago
@Nobody I've added more info to address the question of pay.
– motosubatsu
5 hours ago
+1. Too bad because I guess OP might have wanted to save the company money by not taking sick days since part of the work could have been done. I've been in this situation before and first thing I did was telling my manager about my condition and ask him if he preferred me to take sick days, or work in a limited way. Perhaps legally borderline, but we were both happy at the end.
– Tim
3 hours ago
16
Seriously? Refusing to walk 10 hours with an infected toe is "refusing duties"?! I would call that malice on the side of the employer, deliberately assigning replacement work that is worse than the usual job. Walking puts more strains on your toes than standing.
– MSalters
3 hours ago
1
@MSalters I don't disagree that walking is harder on toes than standing (I've broken a toe or two in my time!) but the question is whether it's unreasonable for the employer to give the OP duties that involve walking vs standing. Without knowing the exact nature of the OP's job I can't say for sure but I'd be surprised if it were. And if they aren't considered "unreasonable" in the context of his job then ultimately yes that would be classed as "refusing duties". You don't know that the employer acted maliciously or that the assignment of this other work had anything to do with his toe. [cont]
– motosubatsu
2 hours ago
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
23
down vote
Sorry this isn't going to be the answer you wanted..
told I was unfit for work but would not send me home
and
I am fit to work just need adjustments for one day.
You're unfit for work through injury/illness not resulting from work activities so should really be following whatever the sickness policy is for your company. The work they requested of you sounds reasonable (something like an office or retail worker being asked to take a 10 mile hike over mountainous terrain when that is couldn't be foreseen as part of the job would be an example of "unreasonable" - just walking around another area of the facility isn't I'm afraid) and you refused to do it. You haven't "shown willing" and therefore the onus is on you to declare yourself sick and leave.
I'm assuming here that your goal in asking to be sent home is to be eligible for pay (also assuming that your employer doesn't offer sick pay beyond Statutory Sick Pay), unfortunately this doesn't apply in your situation as it is you that refused duties first. If (for example) you had agreed to do the work assigned and they had said to you "this isn't working, you can hardly walk - go home!" then it would have counted as you having shown willing and they would have had to pay you (unless you are on a zero-hour contract).
If you have been sick for 4 consecutive days or more (including non-working days) then you are eligible for SSP and can claim that for up to 28 weeks (although it is not paid for the first 3 days).
If your company does provide company sick pay (a.k.a. an "occupational scheme") then check your contract for any conditions that need to be followed (such as reporting methods, deadlines and quantity limits) and if you can meet those then then go home, put your feet up and recuperate! That's what it's there for.
failed to make reasonable adjustments for 1 day
They are under no obligation to do so, the legal obligations around making "reasonable adjustments" applies in the case of disability, pregnancy (during and after), and long-term health conditions such as arthritis - not because you're sick and injured.
threatened with disciplinary
Are you really surprised by this? You've behaved insubordinately, made unreasonable demands and tried to make your sickness/injury their problem. I'm surprised it's only at the "threat" stage to be honest!
Are they wrong to act like this?
Nope, sorry!
answered 5 hours ago
motosubatsu
34.7k1588142
4
It sounds like they threatened not to pay op if they went home sick. I suspect they would need to by law so your answer is incomplete at best. Or just wrong.
– Nobody
5 hours ago
@Nobody I've added more info to address the question of pay.
– motosubatsu
5 hours ago
+1. Too bad because I guess OP might have wanted to save the company money by not taking sick days since part of the work could have been done. I've been in this situation before and first thing I did was telling my manager about my condition and ask him if he preferred me to take sick days, or work in a limited way. Perhaps legally borderline, but we were both happy at the end.
– Tim
3 hours ago
16
Seriously? Refusing to walk 10 hours with an infected toe is "refusing duties"?! I would call that malice on the side of the employer, deliberately assigning replacement work that is worse than the usual job. Walking puts more strains on your toes than standing.
– MSalters
3 hours ago
1
@MSalters I don't disagree that walking is harder on toes than standing (I've broken a toe or two in my time!) but the question is whether it's unreasonable for the employer to give the OP duties that involve walking vs standing. Without knowing the exact nature of the OP's job I can't say for sure but I'd be surprised if it were. And if they aren't considered "unreasonable" in the context of his job then ultimately yes that would be classed as "refusing duties". You don't know that the employer acted maliciously or that the assignment of this other work had anything to do with his toe. [cont]
– motosubatsu
2 hours ago
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
23
down vote
up vote
23
down vote
Sorry this isn't going to be the answer you wanted..
told I was unfit for work but would not send me home
and
I am fit to work just need adjustments for one day.
You're unfit for work through injury/illness not resulting from work activities so should really be following whatever the sickness policy is for your company. The work they requested of you sounds reasonable (something like an office or retail worker being asked to take a 10 mile hike over mountainous terrain when that is couldn't be foreseen as part of the job would be an example of "unreasonable" - just walking around another area of the facility isn't I'm afraid) and you refused to do it. You haven't "shown willing" and therefore the onus is on you to declare yourself sick and leave.
I'm assuming here that your goal in asking to be sent home is to be eligible for pay (also assuming that your employer doesn't offer sick pay beyond Statutory Sick Pay), unfortunately this doesn't apply in your situation as it is you that refused duties first. If (for example) you had agreed to do the work assigned and they had said to you "this isn't working, you can hardly walk - go home!" then it would have counted as you having shown willing and they would have had to pay you (unless you are on a zero-hour contract).
If you have been sick for 4 consecutive days or more (including non-working days) then you are eligible for SSP and can claim that for up to 28 weeks (although it is not paid for the first 3 days).
If your company does provide company sick pay (a.k.a. an "occupational scheme") then check your contract for any conditions that need to be followed (such as reporting methods, deadlines and quantity limits) and if you can meet those then then go home, put your feet up and recuperate! That's what it's there for.
failed to make reasonable adjustments for 1 day
They are under no obligation to do so, the legal obligations around making "reasonable adjustments" applies in the case of disability, pregnancy (during and after), and long-term health conditions such as arthritis - not because you're sick and injured.
threatened with disciplinary
Are you really surprised by this? You've behaved insubordinately, made unreasonable demands and tried to make your sickness/injury their problem. I'm surprised it's only at the "threat" stage to be honest!
Are they wrong to act like this?
Nope, sorry!
answered 5 hours ago
motosubatsu
34.7k1588142
Sorry this isn't going to be the answer you wanted..
told I was unfit for work but would not send me home
and
I am fit to work just need adjustments for one day.
You're unfit for work through injury/illness not resulting from work activities so should really be following whatever the sickness policy is for your company. The work they requested of you sounds reasonable (something like an office or retail worker being asked to take a 10 mile hike over mountainous terrain when that is couldn't be foreseen as part of the job would be an example of "unreasonable" - just walking around another area of the facility isn't I'm afraid) and you refused to do it. You haven't "shown willing" and therefore the onus is on you to declare yourself sick and leave.
I'm assuming here that your goal in asking to be sent home is to be eligible for pay (also assuming that your employer doesn't offer sick pay beyond Statutory Sick Pay), unfortunately this doesn't apply in your situation as it is you that refused duties first. If (for example) you had agreed to do the work assigned and they had said to you "this isn't working, you can hardly walk - go home!" then it would have counted as you having shown willing and they would have had to pay you (unless you are on a zero-hour contract).
If you have been sick for 4 consecutive days or more (including non-working days) then you are eligible for SSP and can claim that for up to 28 weeks (although it is not paid for the first 3 days).
If your company does provide company sick pay (a.k.a. an "occupational scheme") then check your contract for any conditions that need to be followed (such as reporting methods, deadlines and quantity limits) and if you can meet those then then go home, put your feet up and recuperate! That's what it's there for.
failed to make reasonable adjustments for 1 day
They are under no obligation to do so, the legal obligations around making "reasonable adjustments" applies in the case of disability, pregnancy (during and after), and long-term health conditions such as arthritis - not because you're sick and injured.
threatened with disciplinary
Are you really surprised by this? You've behaved insubordinately, made unreasonable demands and tried to make your sickness/injury their problem. I'm surprised it's only at the "threat" stage to be honest!
Are they wrong to act like this?
Nope, sorry!
answered 5 hours ago
motosubatsu
34.7k1588142
edited 4 hours ago
answered 5 hours ago
motosubatsu
34.7k1588142
answered 5 hours ago
motosubatsu
34.7k1588142
answered 5 hours ago
motosubatsu
34.7k1588142
34.7k1588142
4
It sounds like they threatened not to pay op if they went home sick. I suspect they would need to by law so your answer is incomplete at best. Or just wrong.
– Nobody
5 hours ago
@Nobody I've added more info to address the question of pay.
– motosubatsu
5 hours ago
+1. Too bad because I guess OP might have wanted to save the company money by not taking sick days since part of the work could have been done. I've been in this situation before and first thing I did was telling my manager about my condition and ask him if he preferred me to take sick days, or work in a limited way. Perhaps legally borderline, but we were both happy at the end.
– Tim
3 hours ago
16
Seriously? Refusing to walk 10 hours with an infected toe is "refusing duties"?! I would call that malice on the side of the employer, deliberately assigning replacement work that is worse than the usual job. Walking puts more strains on your toes than standing.
– MSalters
3 hours ago
1
@MSalters I don't disagree that walking is harder on toes than standing (I've broken a toe or two in my time!) but the question is whether it's unreasonable for the employer to give the OP duties that involve walking vs standing. Without knowing the exact nature of the OP's job I can't say for sure but I'd be surprised if it were. And if they aren't considered "unreasonable" in the context of his job then ultimately yes that would be classed as "refusing duties". You don't know that the employer acted maliciously or that the assignment of this other work had anything to do with his toe. [cont]
– motosubatsu
2 hours ago
 |Â
show 2 more comments
4
It sounds like they threatened not to pay op if they went home sick. I suspect they would need to by law so your answer is incomplete at best. Or just wrong.
– Nobody
5 hours ago
@Nobody I've added more info to address the question of pay.
– motosubatsu
5 hours ago
+1. Too bad because I guess OP might have wanted to save the company money by not taking sick days since part of the work could have been done. I've been in this situation before and first thing I did was telling my manager about my condition and ask him if he preferred me to take sick days, or work in a limited way. Perhaps legally borderline, but we were both happy at the end.
– Tim
3 hours ago
16
Seriously? Refusing to walk 10 hours with an infected toe is "refusing duties"?! I would call that malice on the side of the employer, deliberately assigning replacement work that is worse than the usual job. Walking puts more strains on your toes than standing.
– MSalters
3 hours ago
1
@MSalters I don't disagree that walking is harder on toes than standing (I've broken a toe or two in my time!) but the question is whether it's unreasonable for the employer to give the OP duties that involve walking vs standing. Without knowing the exact nature of the OP's job I can't say for sure but I'd be surprised if it were. And if they aren't considered "unreasonable" in the context of his job then ultimately yes that would be classed as "refusing duties". You don't know that the employer acted maliciously or that the assignment of this other work had anything to do with his toe. [cont]
– motosubatsu
2 hours ago
4
4
It sounds like they threatened not to pay op if they went home sick. I suspect they would need to by law so your answer is incomplete at best. Or just wrong.
– Nobody
5 hours ago
It sounds like they threatened not to pay op if they went home sick. I suspect they would need to by law so your answer is incomplete at best. Or just wrong.
– Nobody
5 hours ago
@Nobody I've added more info to address the question of pay.
– motosubatsu
5 hours ago
@Nobody I've added more info to address the question of pay.
– motosubatsu
5 hours ago
+1. Too bad because I guess OP might have wanted to save the company money by not taking sick days since part of the work could have been done. I've been in this situation before and first thing I did was telling my manager about my condition and ask him if he preferred me to take sick days, or work in a limited way. Perhaps legally borderline, but we were both happy at the end.
– Tim
3 hours ago
+1. Too bad because I guess OP might have wanted to save the company money by not taking sick days since part of the work could have been done. I've been in this situation before and first thing I did was telling my manager about my condition and ask him if he preferred me to take sick days, or work in a limited way. Perhaps legally borderline, but we were both happy at the end.
– Tim
3 hours ago
16
16
Seriously? Refusing to walk 10 hours with an infected toe is "refusing duties"?! I would call that malice on the side of the employer, deliberately assigning replacement work that is worse than the usual job. Walking puts more strains on your toes than standing.
– MSalters
3 hours ago
Seriously? Refusing to walk 10 hours with an infected toe is "refusing duties"?! I would call that malice on the side of the employer, deliberately assigning replacement work that is worse than the usual job. Walking puts more strains on your toes than standing.
– MSalters
3 hours ago
1
1
@MSalters I don't disagree that walking is harder on toes than standing (I've broken a toe or two in my time!) but the question is whether it's unreasonable for the employer to give the OP duties that involve walking vs standing. Without knowing the exact nature of the OP's job I can't say for sure but I'd be surprised if it were. And if they aren't considered "unreasonable" in the context of his job then ultimately yes that would be classed as "refusing duties". You don't know that the employer acted maliciously or that the assignment of this other work had anything to do with his toe. [cont]
– motosubatsu
2 hours ago
@MSalters I don't disagree that walking is harder on toes than standing (I've broken a toe or two in my time!) but the question is whether it's unreasonable for the employer to give the OP duties that involve walking vs standing. Without knowing the exact nature of the OP's job I can't say for sure but I'd be surprised if it were. And if they aren't considered "unreasonable" in the context of his job then ultimately yes that would be classed as "refusing duties". You don't know that the employer acted maliciously or that the assignment of this other work had anything to do with his toe. [cont]
– motosubatsu
2 hours ago
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
5
down vote
If you refer to the ACAS page on Reasonable adjustments in the workplace, you'll find (unfortunately for you) that employers in the UK are only required to make these adjustments for workers with disabilities - and makes no mention of (presumably short-term) sickness or injury.
As such, their determination that you were "unfit for work" seems to have been justified (at least technically), so it appears that they've done nothing illegal.
I'm not entirely clear on the events you describe around being told that you're unfit for work, as first you write
told I am unfit for work, and I should go home
but then
told I was unfit for work but would not send me home
With the limited info you've given it looks to me as though you were expected to "take a sick day", and whether or not that would be paid time off depends your entitlement to statutory sick pay.
Superficially is does seem that they were somewhat unreasonable in asking you to do this other job involving some walking when your normal job is just standing, but you haven't shared much around this so there might be other factors at play here ...
answered 5 hours ago
brhans
1,9801119
you're correct - reasonable adjustments are applicable only to those considered "disabled" for work purposes. This can include physical and mental health conditions and it doesn't need to be permanent but it does need to be long term and leave the individual at a significant disadvantage for either obtaining to retaining employment
– motosubatsu
4 hours ago
@MartinBonner - yep - I'm getting my employment geography confused. Better now?
– brhans
2 hours ago
Much better - thanks.
– Martin Bonner
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
If you refer to the ACAS page on Reasonable adjustments in the workplace, you'll find (unfortunately for you) that employers in the UK are only required to make these adjustments for workers with disabilities - and makes no mention of (presumably short-term) sickness or injury.
As such, their determination that you were "unfit for work" seems to have been justified (at least technically), so it appears that they've done nothing illegal.
I'm not entirely clear on the events you describe around being told that you're unfit for work, as first you write
told I am unfit for work, and I should go home
but then
told I was unfit for work but would not send me home
With the limited info you've given it looks to me as though you were expected to "take a sick day", and whether or not that would be paid time off depends your entitlement to statutory sick pay.
Superficially is does seem that they were somewhat unreasonable in asking you to do this other job involving some walking when your normal job is just standing, but you haven't shared much around this so there might be other factors at play here ...
answered 5 hours ago
brhans
1,9801119
you're correct - reasonable adjustments are applicable only to those considered "disabled" for work purposes. This can include physical and mental health conditions and it doesn't need to be permanent but it does need to be long term and leave the individual at a significant disadvantage for either obtaining to retaining employment
– motosubatsu
4 hours ago
@MartinBonner - yep - I'm getting my employment geography confused. Better now?
– brhans
2 hours ago
Much better - thanks.
– Martin Bonner
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
If you refer to the ACAS page on Reasonable adjustments in the workplace, you'll find (unfortunately for you) that employers in the UK are only required to make these adjustments for workers with disabilities - and makes no mention of (presumably short-term) sickness or injury.
As such, their determination that you were "unfit for work" seems to have been justified (at least technically), so it appears that they've done nothing illegal.
I'm not entirely clear on the events you describe around being told that you're unfit for work, as first you write
told I am unfit for work, and I should go home
but then
told I was unfit for work but would not send me home
With the limited info you've given it looks to me as though you were expected to "take a sick day", and whether or not that would be paid time off depends your entitlement to statutory sick pay.
Superficially is does seem that they were somewhat unreasonable in asking you to do this other job involving some walking when your normal job is just standing, but you haven't shared much around this so there might be other factors at play here ...
answered 5 hours ago
brhans
1,9801119
If you refer to the ACAS page on Reasonable adjustments in the workplace, you'll find (unfortunately for you) that employers in the UK are only required to make these adjustments for workers with disabilities - and makes no mention of (presumably short-term) sickness or injury.
As such, their determination that you were "unfit for work" seems to have been justified (at least technically), so it appears that they've done nothing illegal.
I'm not entirely clear on the events you describe around being told that you're unfit for work, as first you write
told I am unfit for work, and I should go home
but then
told I was unfit for work but would not send me home
With the limited info you've given it looks to me as though you were expected to "take a sick day", and whether or not that would be paid time off depends your entitlement to statutory sick pay.
Superficially is does seem that they were somewhat unreasonable in asking you to do this other job involving some walking when your normal job is just standing, but you haven't shared much around this so there might be other factors at play here ...
answered 5 hours ago
brhans
1,9801119
edited 2 hours ago
answered 5 hours ago
brhans
1,9801119
answered 5 hours ago
brhans
1,9801119
answered 5 hours ago
brhans
1,9801119
1,9801119
you're correct - reasonable adjustments are applicable only to those considered "disabled" for work purposes. This can include physical and mental health conditions and it doesn't need to be permanent but it does need to be long term and leave the individual at a significant disadvantage for either obtaining to retaining employment
– motosubatsu
4 hours ago
@MartinBonner - yep - I'm getting my employment geography confused. Better now?
– brhans
2 hours ago
Much better - thanks.
– Martin Bonner
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
you're correct - reasonable adjustments are applicable only to those considered "disabled" for work purposes. This can include physical and mental health conditions and it doesn't need to be permanent but it does need to be long term and leave the individual at a significant disadvantage for either obtaining to retaining employment
– motosubatsu
4 hours ago
@MartinBonner - yep - I'm getting my employment geography confused. Better now?
– brhans
2 hours ago
Much better - thanks.
– Martin Bonner
2 hours ago
you're correct - reasonable adjustments are applicable only to those considered "disabled" for work purposes. This can include physical and mental health conditions and it doesn't need to be permanent but it does need to be long term and leave the individual at a significant disadvantage for either obtaining to retaining employment
– motosubatsu
4 hours ago
you're correct - reasonable adjustments are applicable only to those considered "disabled" for work purposes. This can include physical and mental health conditions and it doesn't need to be permanent but it does need to be long term and leave the individual at a significant disadvantage for either obtaining to retaining employment
– motosubatsu
4 hours ago
@MartinBonner - yep - I'm getting my employment geography confused. Better now?
– brhans
2 hours ago
@MartinBonner - yep - I'm getting my employment geography confused. Better now?
– brhans
2 hours ago
Much better - thanks.
– Martin Bonner
2 hours ago
Much better - thanks.
– Martin Bonner
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
qwerty1234 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
qwerty1234 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
qwerty1234 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
qwerty1234 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworkplace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f120905%2fi-refused-work-due-to-an-injury-i-was-threatened-with-disciplinary%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
10
Are you a member of a union?
– Joe Strazzere
6 hours ago
3
If they are still available, you might want to run this question by your local union rep.
– Joe Strazzere
6 hours ago
2
Did you inform your supervisor of your injury and reduced mobility at the start of the shift?
– AdzzzUK
5 hours ago
5
failed to make reasonable adjustments for 1 dayWhat makes you think they have to?– Dan
5 hours ago
7
If you are unable to do your job you should go home, that's not a debate. Wether you still get paid depends on your contract, if you're paid a salary it won't change if you have a sick day (Not 100% sure that's true everywhere), if you're paid hourly it makes sense to not pay you when you're sick.
– kevin
3 hours ago