Jump to content

tx2online

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About tx2online

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. In addition to my last, does my treatment for anxiety/depression have any bearing here? The former of which I have been on medication for several years, the latter has been going on for a long time, but only recently did events mean I spoke to my GP at length about it, hence why I am waiting to see a Consultant Psychiatrist.My GP considers me to have the conditions, but I haven't been officially diagnosed by a specialist, per se.
  2. Thanks for the prompt and helpful reply, however, can I just ask you to clarify what you mean by "absence is protracted"? Do you mean if it gets worse and over time I have to have a lot more time off? Apologies, just want to be sure of the context as it's not a word I am familiar with in this respect. There has never been any doubt or question as to my ability to carry out my work, indeed, the OHS said the impact would be minimal, which it is, however, from time to time the condition simply overwhelms me, and I need time to 'recharge'. Can I also ask in what capacity you reply? Are you engaged in employment law as a career, or are offering best advice based on peer responses elsewhere? I don't wish to sound ungrateful for your time, I am truly the opposite, but I obviously need to make sure I can cite my response to my employer. Whilst they may not be treating me fairly, the Equality Act is not a card I really want to play, thus I need to be absolutely sure of my facts before presenting them, and I do understand that from a business perspective, they have formal procedures they are entitled to take.
  3. Employer has in excess of 100 employees. They have sent me to the same Occ Health twice, so I guess they subscribe to this service. In 2011, Occupational Health wrote : "certainly, the duration of his symptomatology would put him in the chronic fatigue category [1] and for this reason I believe it would be prudent to assume that it could be covered by the disability provisions of the Equality Act 2010" In 2014, Occupational Health wrote : "I think it probable that - named individual - would be considered covered by the disability provisions of the Equality Act 2010, although as I am sure you are aware, ultimately that is not a medical decision". Insofar as I can see, on both occasions my employer has sent me to the OH service, my condition has been highlighted as being covered by the aformentioned Act. It's not a card I want to play, I just want my life back, but if they are going to 'punish' me with formal reprimands for time off, I feel they are playing on a very sticky wicket. However, I do not want to go in all guns blazing. I want to have an informed discussion with them over what I consider an informal warning. [1] I had been officially diagnosed with CFS by the NHS Service for this area just prior to this Occupational Health assessment.
  4. Please, can someone offer me some sound legal advice regarding M.E/CFS and employment law? My situation is that I have officially been diagnosed with CFS (and therefore am most likely covered under the Equality Act 2010) and the condition has meant I have taken quite a bit of time off work in the last few months. This is due in part to me having to 'hide' the condition in fear of my job, something which I have found quite difficult to do, and which has meant no life for the last two years. A change at the top with my employer bought in a more 'sympathetic' viewpoint, but with a culmination of other events in my life which caused me a lot of stress, plus the build up over many months of my condition, CFS really reared it's ugly head. I have had some relapses where I sometimes just can't function and ultimately took time off work. We are allowed 6 weeks per rolling 12 months on full sick pay, but I have been advised I am close to this limit and will go onto SSP if I have any more time off. Fine. However, the informal letter I have received says "I need to sustain a more regular attendance, irrespective of cause, to the adverse effect this can have on service delivery". The letter finishes, "I hope that you will soon be able to return to work (edit note : I already have) and sustain regular attendance to avoid the need for any formal action in this respect". I have no issue with going onto SSP as required, however, I do feel my employer is putting me under undue stress by informally warning/advising/making note, that further absence will result in formal proceedings against me. Under the Equality Act, can they do this? I haven't asked for any special measures at work, I just try to get on with it, and do my best. They are fully aware of my condition, as they even sent me to Occupational Health for assessment! Should I just accept this? Should I ask them precisely what 'formal action' will entail, or am I within my rights to tell them to place it somewhere dark? I really don't feel my employer has been at all fair with me, particularly as the most recent absence which triggered this letter, was down to a serious car accident for which I was not to blame, the circumstances now surrounding which are causing me intense stress, and I am fearful will lead to another CFS relapse. I also suffer with (and am being treated by my GP for) anxiety and depression, and an waiting to see a psychiatrist.My employer also knows this.
  5. The genuine concern I have, which I consider important enough to dispute, does not need 'lightening up', thank you. Have you actually read and absorbed my posts? I am being 'forced' to park in this area under instruction from Management whereas previously I would park in what I consider a safer area. I have no viable alternative to using my car for the commute to and from work, and there are too many restrictions in place to make parking on the public highway an option (2 hour limited parking, yellow lines etc) I am parking on site out of necessity, thus I am trying to ensure the safety of my property whilst on site. I hope that clarifies the situation for you?
  6. I need to cite this, as I fear challenging my concerns with opinion alone is going to fall on deaf ears. But we are heading in the right direction
  7. I absolutely agree with you, but would point out I don't believe I suggested any obligation to provide parking as you perhaps imply. The choice aspect is not quite so clear as whether to choose using public transport or private. Private transport is essential to travel and with the restrictions on public highway parking, there is little else to do but park where facilities are provided. Therefore, choosing to park there is out of necessity rather than perhaps a preference over parking somewhere else. Employee liaison certainly does need improvement. Having spoke (earlier in the day when this 'surfaced') to several other employees who share the same opinion on the matter, I am going to approach my Union rep to start dialogue over whether the facilities can be improved in respect of protection to property. Thank you for your valuable feedback.
  8. My employer is giving me a permit to park. They are therefore providing me with parking. Yes, I choose to park there, but there is little or no other option than to commute by car. Public transport, for example, is not possible. Parking is provided on site for employees. It is neither written, nor it is a verbal contract. It is simply accepted. Whereas I currently choose to park in a 'safe' area, my employer is insisting I now park in an unsafe area without accepting the risk to my property thereon. I don't think that is acceptable. I have to use my car to arrive at my place of work, as do the majority of other employees there due to its rural location, therefore if they are to permit use of onsite parking, they should ensure it is in an area used exclusively for such, and not a communal 'playground' where little Jimmy will be tempted to vandalise my paintwork. I don't see that as unreasonable. You seem to desire to lower the discussion to a personal level re: your comments and cotton wool. If you are unable to make your point without ridicule or belittlement, please resist the urge to post, it does nothing for your integrity.
  9. No, I believe you have confused the issue. I am being told to park in the rear car park from now on, whilst other 'preferential' employees will be allowed to park in the front car park for reasons explained earlier. Please note : There isn't really an option to park on the highway due to local restrictions in place. The location is also rural, so car transport is quite necessary. I currently choose to park in the car park where damage is less likely to occur to my car as my employer will not accept liability for such. My employer is now insisting I park my car in a car park where there is much increased risk of damage by a 3rd party. If my employer is going to enforce where I must park, I feel they have a obligation to ensure the risk of my car being damaged is reduced. They may as well say "you must put your hand in a fire. We'll make sure it is nice and hot, but we don't take responsibility if you get burnt".
  10. No-one is being allocated parking spaces as such, more parking 'areas' in which they must park. Those allowed to park in the front car park (my favoured choice as previously explained) are those staff who have to leave the premises either to carry out their roles, or are part-time, arriving later or finishing earlier. The decision for them being allowed to park in the front car park is that they don't have to be concerned with unlocking a gate to enter/exit. The matter seems trivial I know, but to my knowledge, no consultation has taken place, certainly none that I have been involved in and I'm not happy with being told I must park there given the potential for damage to occur. If my employer is prepared to make the area a no-go for students, then I wouldn't have an issue save the state of the ground which consists of what can only be described as hardcore base material in some areas.
  11. Yes, this is my main concern. My car is well looked after, machine polished with a finish to the paintwork I'd like to maintain. I'm not a 'petrol head' per se, but it is a nice car and I like to keep it looking that way. My fear is that students will either wilfully scratch the paint, or innocently damage it by way of a football, mud slinging, stone throwing etc as it is directly adjacent to their 'playground' area. I am being told that to park my car there is at my own risk, certainly in respect of any damage caused, which is why I currently choose to park it in an alternative car park which is less at risk of such acts. I would park off site if there were opportunity to do so, but there isn't as explained earlier. It seems clear my employer cannot refuse liability on health and safety grounds, but they probably can in respect of material damage which may occur. I think I have a case to not be forced to park in a certain area, particularly as other staff are being permitted to park elsewhere when there is no case for them to be able to do so considering the locked exit gate is keypad controlled access. It is unclear as to which angle I can approach this matter, certainly from a legal/lawful viewpoint as opposed to an opinionated one.
  12. I have, to my knowledge, signed nothing. Can you cite a legal/official source to support your statement? If I can build a solid case to at the very least ensure the area where I am being forced to park my car is 'safe', it would be useful.
  13. I have no idea as to who 'agreed' the permits; I know mention of it has been about for many months now, but has only just come to the fore in an 'official' capacity. I do not know the Council's policy, nor do I know what happens if you do not have, or display a permit (the latter of which I intend to also not do as it has been said we must affix the permit to the interior of the windscreen, the holder of such being a permanent 'glue' backed plastic wallet affair) I am a member of a Union, and may well have words, but I wanted to gauge some opinion prior to doing this. My main gripe is that they don't accept liability for damage to vehicles, but insist we park in an area where damage is most likely to occur. Thanks.
  14. The permits are being issued by the school, I presume, or at least by the member of staff who has, with management's blessing, seemingly organised the whole affair. Some staff are being allowed to park in the front car park, these having been identified as needing to leave the premises during normal office hours, i.e. part-time staff, finance office staff, management. The rear car park exit/entrance gate is locked (school policy) and secured with a combination lock, so anyone with knowledge of it can gain entry/exit. I fail to see why this doesn't include the above staff? Yes, my employer is instructing me (and others) to now use the rear car park, but will not accept liability if my car is vandalised. They don't accept liability out the front either, but, in my opinion, there is a reduced risk as no student has access to this area during the day. I have been told nothing official per se, on what action will be taken for a breach of the permit, but I am lead to believe disciplinary action will be taken for failure to adhere to parking 'rules'.
×
×
  • Create New...