Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Attachments (Exhibits)   FTMDave and I have called them "Attachments" but I note Andyorch used the term "Exhibits".  I don't think it makes any difference which you use but perhaps Exhibits is more correct.  Whichever you use, make sure you use the term consistently.  (i'm going to use Attachment for now).   You use Attachments as supporting evidence for things you mention in the numbered particulars of your claim.  Might be a report from a third party or a quote from a third party.  In the relevant numbered particular of your claim you refer to the appropriate Attachment supporting that part of the claim.  eg like this "(See Attachment A)".   You can use numbers or capital letters to identify each Attachment.  I don't think it matters which but be consistent in your usage.   It helps if the Attachments are organised and incorporated into your claim in a logical sequence.  (eg A, B, C etc)   Make sure each attachment is clearly labelled "Attachment A"  etc.   If it is not immediately clear to the reader what an attachment is, put a brief description.  Eg "Quote from XXXXX Ltd to complete unfinished plastering" or whatever.  Make sure the reader can understand what each attachment is.   Ideally each Attachment will be no more than one page.  So you can make the labelling of attachments even clearer by labelling them "Attachment A  -  page 1 of 1" etc etc.   If an attachment is longer than one page you label it "Attachment A - page 1 of 2" and then "Attachment A - page 2 of 2", or whatever it is.   By doing all that you are making it easier for the judge to follow - and you want the judge on your side...   Now - what you've posted in #109 is helpful because it adds up to to £16577.  Which is good.  But if I were the judge, I'd want to know where the individual items come from.     So what you have posted in #109 should - I suggest - be your final attachment.  Let's call it "Attachment H" for now.  So at the end of your particulars of counterclaim where you say you are claiming £16577 from the defendant, you put the reference "See Attachment H".   The judge then looks at Attachment H and sees a total of £16577.  What you then need on Attachment H next to each individual item on there, is a reference to which earlier Attachment that item comes from.  eg "See Attachment C".  The judge can then look at Attachment C and understand where the item on Attachment H comes from.  By doing that rigorously and methodically for each item on Attachment H you are justifying each item and the total of £16577.  Yes?   Your schedule in #109 is OK but raises questions that need answering.  eg: spelling as spotted by Honeybee13 Grand total as spotted by Honeybee13 TBA or estimates as per my previous post and Honeybee why is it in two separate sections (£8577 and £8000)? The item numbering is absolute garbage At the end of the day it is going to be the detail (or lack of detail) in your attachments that will win (or lose) you the case.  It has to be just right and you have to be consistent.  It has to be logical, methodical and consistent so it can be understood immediately.   I don't want you to give me answers to these questions.  I want you to act on them.   As I said earlier, don't post any more work you have done for now.  Wait until FTMDave is back this evening so we are all working from the same page at the same time.   If Andyorch or FTMDave suggest anything that disagrees with me, go with what they say.  They know more than me.   (I suspect one of them might suggest some kind of contents list identifying and listing all the different attachments)    
    • Hi again I sent my letter off on Monday, signed for delivery as I wanted to make sure it's got there, it was finally delivered yesterday Last night I had a text from them:   "There is a 50% settlement discount available on your account.  If you cannot pay in full this can be paid across 3 equal monthly instalments of £339.57.  To take advantage of this offer please visit" and then a website link.   Hopefully they will be in touch soon to say they've taken the letter on board and will leave me alone now.   I'll update this thread if I hear anything, it really helped me to see others had been in my situation. Fingers crossed
    • It hasnt caused tfl financial harm, those cards are paid for by the public purse. Your abuse of that is what you need to get acrossYour   id also state a criminal record will destroy your future career totally.   Dx
    • sure, this is the email i will send today unless there are any changes i should make?   Dear Sir/Madam,   I am emailing as I wish to ask for an out of court settlement regarding my case (case number). I realise that my actions have caused TFL financial harm and for that I am truly sorry, and would like to help remedy this in any way. Whilst there is no excuse for my actions, at the time, I was struggling to afford transport as a student working only 6 hours a week. Student finance did not provide maintenance for masters and on top of this, I was on universal credit during that time. I have since been paying for the travel using my bank card and despite going into overdraft multiple times, I continued to pay the full fare for the past 4 months and will continue to do so. This is a mistake I truly regret and am willing to pay the entire amount stated to settle this as soon as possible. Thank you in advance for your consideration.   Kind regards,    
    • Ex-Credit Suisse chief António Horta-Osório went to Wembley on same day he attended Wimbledon.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Problems at work... help required


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3980 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

 

I've got a really awkward situation at work and I shall try to summarise it and then place here my responses to formal grievance procedures etc with a hope I can get some advice from anyone specialising, or with experience, in this field.

 

BRIEF OUTLINE OF FACTS

 

I had two periods of sickness from my part time job due to Clinical Depression. First absence (Dec '09 to Feb '09) and the second (Nov '09 - May '10).

 

During my absence I felt I was abused by a HR manager who called me up at home on a number of occasions and was very rude/arrogant. I was told I had to stay at home during core working hours and, as I have to go past work everyday, felt very paranoid that I was being watched whenever I needed to go to the Docs etc. It felt like he was winding me up to be honest.

 

I raised a formal grievance in Jan '10 but heard absolutely nothing from my employer about it. I attended a couple of absence management meetings where I raised the issue about the grievance and they said they would pass on the message.

 

Upon my return to work in May '10 I was asked to go into a meeting with the HR rep for my department and I was asked whether my grievance had now ended... I said it hadn't even been heard in an informal meeting yet. She seemed panicked and set about raising one.

 

I attended the meeting and put across my points. I attended a further meeting where my points were "handled" in a way I felt was unsatisfactory. My initial grievance considered the following points:

 

1) The attitude of the HR rep calling me at home

2) The lack of communication and delay in handling my initial grievance letter

 

I received a reply letter (haven't scanned it... I'll do it tomorrow) which claimed that they were trying to be sensitive to my emotional state in not holding formal proceedings to hear my grievance (but did not communicate this at all) and that the HR rep recognised that he "may have been abrupt" and that his own manager had spoken to him and intimated that requesting employees to stay at home "was not part of absence management procedures".

 

I wasn't really happy with this response; it's difficult to convey the tone of the meeting and environment here but it felt very intimidating.

 

The outcome letter is dated 01/09/2010 (so I believe I have another month to raise a tribunal claim???) - in light of it I raised a letter in response to the next person up to manage the appeal BUT I have had absolutely NO faith in the company to handle it hence me not filing it in the required timeline... it should become apparent why I have not decided to file it in the second letter I post.

 

I would like to appeal the “decision” arrived at by person A in conclusion of my formal grievance. I feel it is better, initially, to quote directly from the letter I have received and then respond to each point to show why I am not happy with the “decision” reached or the way in which the letter has dealt with certain issues. I have taken this time to consider all of the issues at hand because the information has involved assessing information within and outside of my knowledge.

 

I shall attempt to address the issues that have been raised as a direct result of the process, raise points which take into account my research into the formal grievance process and direct you to legal cases which offer clarification on certain issues. Finally I shall demonstrate how I expect the grievance to be handled at the appeal stage and whether there is the opportunity for us to resolve the grievance amicably between ourselves without the need for further action. For the avoidance of doubt I am quoting directly from the letter dated 01/09/2010 as written by person A.

 

Letter points and my response to them

 

1. “You explained to me that you were unhappy with the tone of conversation held with person B and the way he handled your absence”.

 

For clarification I raised issues not only with the “tone” but also the remarks made by person B in the course of the conversations. I shall address the tone of the conversation later on but it was the remarks that were most pertinent in my mind. On a number of occasions he referred to “someone like you” when speaking to me. For instance, I recall one of the comments was “someone like you should not be out of the house”. I felt this was directly referring to, and disparaging of, my mental illness. I felt this because the only identifier for “someone like you” was my mental illness and not any other trait I have. person B was not someone I was aware of before he made the calls to me with us never having come into contact before and he was calling me in direct relation to my absence which, was of course, for my mental health issues. He made a few comments in the course of our conversations that felt like they were directly referring to my mental health and was either conceived from a lack of understanding about my illness, from a belief held by person B that I was not absent from work for genuine reasons or simply from an attitude of hostility.

 

If there are any other reasons for person B taking the line of questioning or making statements that could be an excuse for his behaviour then I have not been able to consider them due to the fact these comments were seemingly not addressed in the letter I received or in the subsequent meeting. I can only infer that there was a failure by the investigators of the grievance procedure to address this matter with person B, an inability to understand my concerns as raised or a desire to circumvent the problem by not referring to it at all.

 

2. “You also acknowledged that you are in a different place now to where you were back in February and you may have possibly been more sensitive to this at the time than you would be now.”

 

There was no acknowledgement of any sort. An acknowledgement, in terms of the language used in the letter, infers that I am somehow accepting a level of responsibility for how hurtful the comments were perceived or that my being more sensitive somehow makes the comments made by person B far less intrusive, inappropriate and disparaging.

 

If this was the impression that I gave the investigators then this is one which I was not attempting to convey at all. I offered the comment as a statement of fact; I was more sensitive at that time due to a chronic mental illness. This means the comments that person B made were even more inappropriate than as if he had spoken to me whilst I was suffering from the flu or a cold or any other minor ailment. The fact that person B was making these comments to someone suffering with mental health issues should be absolutely alarming to the company. I do not feel this was adequately addressed in the letter or within the investigation process as a whole and this is something I will come back to later on.

 

3. “You also explained that you were advised that you should be at home whilst off sick during your core hours of work.”

 

My “core hours” at work was 5:30pm to 9:30pm, at the time of the phone calls, which have since been changed by agreement with my line manager. Therefore the expectation to stay at home at these times would possibly have been a given. What I said in the meeting was that person B stated I should be at home during the “business core working hours” because he was attempting to arrange a meeting at my home during the day. Therefore to suggest that he said I should stay at home during my own working hours was false; he effectively said I should be at home during all working hours. I shall come to the “decision” made on this matter later on.

 

I believe I have explained why I am unhappy with some of the premises used to investigate my concerns. I shall now reply to the actual “decisions” or “responses” which were reached in the letter and explain why I am unhappy with those replies.

 

4. “We have spoken to person B and he has acknowledged that he may have been rather abrupt with you on the telephone and recognises that this is inappropriate.”

 

This area of my grievance has not been answered to my satisfaction or responded to in a manner befitting a formal process. The response, to my mind, is not a satisfactory explanation or apology for behavior which left me feeling uncomfortable in my own home. I was, at the time, suffering from a chronic illness under the supervision of a superb medical team at RR Surgery. His conduct did not consider, at any time, the extremities of the illness I was afflicted with. He had scant regard for my condition, my mental health or my overall well being. He was condescending, malevolent and ill spirited; these are not the natural attributes for someone who is merely “abrupt” and would certainly be no excuse for someone who is. For me the acknowledgement of abruptness is lame and an ill conceived reply designed, I suspect, to mollify rather than genuinely resolve the issue. In fact his conduct has not even been addressed on the points of his attitude towards my mental illness and, more distressingly, there is absolutely no apology whatsoever.

 

I raised a very specific complaint about the conduct of person B with regard not only to the tone but also the comments made. The fact this has not been dealt with means I have no option but to “appeal” against the matter and I have undertaken further research to ascertain what cause of action has arisen from the failure of this point to be addressed.

 

Firstly, the conduct of person B amounts to “harassment” in the literal sense of the word. Harassment is classed as the following:

 

Harassment, in general terms, is:

 

“unwanted conduct affecting the dignity of men and women in the workplace. It may be related to age, sex, race, disability, religion, sexual orientation, nationality or any personal characteristic of the individual, and may be persistent or an isolated incident. The key is that the actions or comments are viewed as demeaning and unacceptable to the recipient.”

 

(ACAS: Bullying and Harassment at Work, pg.2 http://www.acas.org.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=304&p=0)

 

This is important bearing in mind that the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 gives protection against discrimination, harassment and victimisation. In addition, under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 employers are responsible for the health, safety and welfare at work of all employees.

 

I think that person B has in no way acknowledged the serious harm he caused with his conduct. He has in fact addressed conduct associated with, what I can only call, a “strawman”; i.e. he has acknowledged abrupt behaviour towards a person who would be less sensitive to such behaviour which, as a result, would imply such behaviour would not normally cause offence or injure that person in any way.

 

I believe that person B’s actions caused unnecessary stress at a time when I was most vulnerable and needing the support of my employer. I believe that such conduct amounts to harassment and there was a failure to uphold the Health and Safety and Work Act 1974. As the comments by person B appeared to be addressing specific inadequacies or expectations in connection with my mental illness, whether through intent, accident or lack of training, I was left with the impression that my feelings were being disregarded and that my mental condition was either being taken advantage of or, again, disregarded. Again, I reiterate from the meeting, when I challenged person B initially on the phone he was in an unforgiving mood offering absolute no remorse for his actions. When I pressed the issue he would put the phone down and thereby prevent any further discourse.

 

I am grateful for his admittance that such behaviour was inappropriate but this immediately begs the question as to why no apology for that behaviour was offered? Furthermore, he recognised inappropriate behaviour only upon the basis of his “tone” rather than the “content” of his conversations with me. This, coupled with the failure of the company to address the issue of the “content”, leaves me with the feeling that the company does not take this matter seriously, is disregarding the mental health issues I was faced with at that time and is ultimately a failure in procedure for reasons I shall expand upon later.

 

5. “I can confirm that it is not normal practice for us to enter into a formal grievance procedure with any employee absent from work on medical grounds”

 

Unfortunately, according to my research, this is a breach of statutory legislation which sets down the right for any employee to have their grievance’s heard. There is no regulation which allows a company to “delay” proceedings for any reason. No such discretion is accounted for in this process and, even if such discretion was afforded, the right of the employee to be consulted first should be considered paramount considering the law bestows that right upon the employee.

 

The delay in procedure causes a number of problems for any investigation. The first being that I am left with the feeling that the company did not want to hear my concerns that I had raised with regard to alleged improper conduct by a member of staff active in the administration of my absence. The second is that the company was failing in their duty to investigate such grievances when notified; this duty is implied in Part Two Schedule 2 of the Employment Act 2002 and also in my employment contract. Such duties are inflexible and transgressions amount to a breach of statutory legislation and breach of contract. I am therefore alleging both breaches for the avoidance of doubt.

 

The third issue is that the delay in the proceedings amounted to approximately 6 months; how is it possible in the course of the investigation to accurately describe the events contained within the complaint? It is, from the impression given to me by the investigators, a key point that person B and even person A were only informed of my grievance two weeks ago. In fact person A used this as an excuse as to why my grievance was not initially dealt with upon my return to work and why he had no knowledge of it since its inception. When I queried this he could not explain why it was not passed onto himself. Therefore my grievance was not handled in the correct manner, was not handled in a manner befitting a large organisation with a vast budget outlaid on its HR team and with any regard to the duty of care owed to me. This has the additional effect of breaching my contract and contravening statutory legislation.

 

6. “[The decision to delay the meeting was] based upon our duty of care to you” (The paragraph also conveyed the feelings that my condition would be exacerbated by going through the formal grievance process.)

 

This would be admirable under difference circumstances. I say this because my condition was being exacerbated by the conduct of a member of staff actively handling my illness. On what basis would the company be able to challenge his behaviour or address my concerns without the formal grievance procedure being followed and thus prevent my condition from deteriorating further? Upon what basis was a duty of care given whereby my statutory rights were set aside and the formal grievance I attempted to instigate is ignored? Not only that, but when the formal procedure does begin the investigation team ignore the main tenet of my grievance and fail to address the crux of the issue entirely. Nothing could be more contradictory.

However, the decision to delay the proceedings was based upon a stereotypical assumption about the effects of my condition without reference to me as an individual. I believe this is inequitable under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 because no reasonable adjustments were made to consider my grievance where any other person would have been given the right to have their grievance heard.

 

Legally speaking, the case of Majrowski -v- Guy's and St Thomas's NHS Trust 2005 held that an employer is vicariously liable for harassment committed by an employee. That liability surely increases when a formal grievance is prevented from going ahead to address the allegation of harassment (whether or not this was implicitly stated). I therefore hold the company accountable for both the harassment which I allege took place, and for which it has been inferred is partly admitted, and for the failure to act upon a formal grievance raised to attend to that allegation.

 

7. “person B’s Manager has spoken to him regarding his request that you remained at home whilst off sick during your working hours. This does not form part of our absence policy and would not be a reasonable request from the business to expect this.”

 

I consider, upon reflection, that the unreasonable demand for me to remain in my home during core working hours is harassment. I say this because I felt intimidated by such a request. My recovery was being handled by professional medical personnel of which included psychotherapy and I was expected to attend these appointments therefore being in no position to accede to such a request from RS Human Resources. It was also impressed upon me by my medical practitioner the value of activities and occupation to assist with my recovery. In other words, my condition would have been hampered by being house bound through my own volition or at the behest of others.

 

I believe the company should bear in mind that me being requested to stay at home was inferred by person B to be part of my attendance management obligations. Such obligations extended to ensuring that I had an appropriate doctor’s note so that I could stay in receipt of SSP (Statutory Sick Pay). The implication that I should be house bound led me to the belief that if I ignored the request my pay would be affected. person B, to my knowledge, holds a position of responsibility and was able to report any indiscretions or apparent issues with my health. I was therefore not to know whether I was under “surveillance” by the company during this period and I have mentioned in the initial grievance meeting that I felt I was being watched. This may have something to do with the fact that the RS warehouse can be seen from my home and also because anytime I need to leave the estate I have to pass front gates where a large collection of individuals congregate for their breaks. I had feelings of trepidation every time I went past during this period because I felt that I was somehow “in the wrong” when in fact no such burden should have been placed upon my shoulders by person B. Judging by the response, no such burden would have been expected. However, it cannot be denied that such burdens were placed upon me and this had a profound effect upon my well being.

 

I therefore feel that this issue requires further contemplation.

 

8. “I hope this captures the issues you have raised and gives you reassurance that we take any employee grievance very seriously and that we will follow up as appropriate.”

 

No all of my issues were captured as I explained above. The formal grievance procedure was delayed unilaterally because I was absent from work; this is not a valid reason for the delay which I allege is in breach of my statutory and contractual rights. Because my main issues were not addressed and because of the delay I do not feel that my grievance has been taken seriously. I do not believe, because of the failure to capture my issues accurately, that the grievance has been followed up properly either. Furthermore there is no indication that the company are willing to prevent such behaviours from occurring again.

 

9. “...you do have the right to appeal against decision...”

 

What decision? No decision has been arrived at by the investigation team. The only response appears to have told person B that the harassment of an employee is wrong and that person B has acknowledged that he “may” have been abrupt. This is a gross understatement of the facts I presented in the initial grievance meeting. This has not been taken seriously in any respect has it? How can it have? I would have expected the investigation team to find that if:

 

a) A member of staff makes disparaging comments without consideration to their mental health or dignity;

 

b) A member of staff states that an employee should not be out of their home during core business hours in breach of company policy;

 

c) A member of staff calls another member of staff on more than one occasion to reiterate these views; that, as a conclusion, this would amount to harassment.

 

I would have expected a competent investigation to have revealed this conclusion because I typed in “absence management, calls, mental health” and a number of topics came up which suggested that harassment is something which should have been taken into account if calls are not handled appropriately. I should not have to inform the company that harassment has taken place; it should be a natural consequence of a proper and thorough investigation.

 

Person B has acknowledged that he made comments which are not company policy; I also alleged that he made comments which I felt directly referenced my capabilities (i.e. that someone like me should not be out of the house). It would not be unfair to suggest that competent person investigating those comments would particularly find that a person afflicted with a mental health condition would have felt extremely distressed by such conduct. But this has not been considered in the investigation at all has it? I find no acknowledgement of my mental health condition in the entire letter. If I was to complain about someone making comments about me being in a wheelchair and any subsequent investigation failed to take into account my “disability” this would be discrimination. The fact my mental health condition was not addressed in the letter, despite me raising it as a pertinent issue in the overall scheme of the conversations I had with person B, should send alarm bells ringing.

 

Conclusions

 

I have to take into consideration that there was no adequate response given addressing very specific grievances. I strongly believe that the company, as an organisation, have not handled the grievance satisfactorily. I also have to couple this with the actual conversations with person B, which I allege is harassment, the prejudice I believe I have suffered as a result of the delay in hearing my grievance, the inability of the company to make reasonable adjustments for my illness to hear my grievance and consider the general distress of dealing with this issue

 

With all of these issues in my mind it is with regret that I believe the working relationship that I have with the company has broken down completely. That is not to say that it is irretrievable but I am considering my position because I do not believe that the company has genuinely had my best interests at heart. I believe the investigation that was undertaken was brief, did not consider all of the issues I attempted to raise and has left me feeling extremely disappointed. Every employee should have the opportunity to work in a safe environment free from harassment and intimidation. When employees are absent from work with clinical conditions I would expect a company to treat them with consideration, respect and with regard to their dignity.

 

Moving forward

 

I believe that many of these issues require more formal proceedings than I believe can be relied upon within the ambit of the grievance procedure but I recognise the need to follow protocol and I therefore request that the issues I have raised are taken into account fully and that the “response” by person A is “appealed”, for want of a better word, in order to attempt to settle matters.

 

I have taken legal advice on the matter and have been advised that the issues which initially gave rise to the formal grievance should have been handled promptly. This did not occur. I have been advised that these issues do not give rise to a cause of action under the discrimination laws directly because there is a 3 month time limit from when the initial act occurred. However, I have been informed that the companies failure to deal with the formal grievance when it was initially raised is an issue which cannot be ignored because I do not have formal union representation. The excuse given (as per point 6) is particularly relevant because the company would have known that this 3 month time limit existed. I have to infer from this that the company deliberately set to delay the hearing so as to incur the 3 month deadline and therefore leave me unable to raise the issue of discrimination.

 

Therefore the cause of action that I now believe exists is the breach or repudiation of contractual rights and the breach of statutory legislation (Employment Act 2002, schedule 2). When the issues I raised with regard to harassment and the overall handling of the formal grievance process are taken into consideration I believe that there is just cause for a number of events to have accumulated to form a breakdown in trust, the working relationship and sufficient foundation for a claim to an Employment Tribunal. If the situation cannot be resolved via the formal process I believe that the next step will be to launch legal proceedings and potentially raise these issues as part of a constructive dismissal claim because I need to be satisfied that my concerns have been taken seriously, that the company is willing to look at the situation diplomatically and suggest ways in which the company can learn from any mistakes and propose a meaningful way in which our differences can be settled.

 

I trust that I have covered every issue in both accurate detail and with a comprehensiveness that allows you to address all of the concerns in full. In the meantime, if I need to clarify any matter raised I am happy to meet for a preliminary meeting to cover those points.

 

*** I've attached a word doc too for ease of reading

 

Now, I haven't actually sent this letter in because I was recently attacked at work by another colleague with know anger issues. How the company handled it left me with no doubt that they would take my complaint seriously. I was going to raise this new formal grievance covering issues raised above and with the new information.

 

Also, I was taken through a disciplinary process for time I took off for my Depression... which has caused further stress on top (and to top it all off I'm in for another one tomorrow morning with the actual warnings being point scored with my Depression absences included).

 

I've raised this letter which I was intending to revise and then hand in with whatever happens tomorrow (which I reckon will be as equally intimidating for me).

 

 

I would like to raise a formal grievance regarding some issues which are leading me to believe that my employment at RS is coming to an end. I am writing this letter in a final attempt to resolve those issues before I am forced to take steps to seek redress for the issues contained within this letter.

 

Issue 1 – Formal Grievance Appeal

 

You are now in receipt of my Formal Grievance Appeal letter which covers “Issue 1”.

 

Issue 2 – Absence Management Meeting

 

I was called into a meeting which took place on 28/09/10 regarding my attendance. Within this meeting I was asked to explain my absences which occurred on a number of dates. One of these absences included my long spell from work with Clinical Depression for which I was asked to explain the circumstances all over again.

 

No attempt was made to refer me to Occupational Health for any mental health issues which occurred as a result of the incident which occurred at work with an agency worker.

 

No attempt has been made, to my knowledge, to discuss with Occupational Health or HR about the best way to proceed with my absence management since returning to work to handle any recurrences of my mental illness or how to manage my condition. This was no more evident than me listing “stress” on my return to work form and no such meeting being held to discuss any lapses in my recovery. I have been left with the distinct impression that the absence management meeting was simply held to further increase my stress levels and to completely disregard any mental health issues I might be suffering from.

 

I say this because one of the dates for absence, which triggered the absence management procedure and subsequent Stage One warning, followed an issue with an agency worker who attempted to physically attack me was reported to person C (a co-ordinator). I had reported that the agency worker had taken a swing at me. This was then dealt with by two co-ordinators who carried out what appeared to be a slapdash interrogation of events in which both me and the agency worker were asked to explain our version of events whilst in the same room. I made my allegation that an attempt to physically attack me was carried out which was denied by the agency worker. It was also denied that any attempt to threaten me was ever insinuated. This was actually challenged by person C who claimed he had heard a threat made towards me outside of my earshot which effectively rendered the agency worker’s previous protestation seemingly redundant. The situation was difficult to handle in the sense that the agency worker kept jumping from his seat to explain things so the coordinators asked us both to leave and they would decide what to do next. I remained for a few moments to explain that I just wanted it handled quickly. I was asked whether I wanted to progress with a formal complaint. I asked what it would entail and what would happen. I was told that a formal complaint of this nature would lead to the dismissal of the employee. I was troubled by this and said that it wasn’t worth anyone losing their job over. I said I wasn’t happy about the entire situation in being effectively dragged into the office with the person I was complaining about and being unable to get any points across effectively.

 

I said I felt stressed with events at home and that this particular situation was doing me any good at all. I said I felt like I wanted to go home and I was told that I could but it would be better for me to stay to get the issue sorted and that I could be placed away from the agency worker in the meantime. I decided to stay simply because I wanted the situation sorted quickly and did not want to prejudice my attendance record with leaving work early in my shift.

 

After some time, I was asked back into the export office where the coordinators wanted me to explain everything in detail so that it could be written down in full. I did so and made it quite clear that I did not want anyone to lose their job. They said that because it was an allegation of attempted assault that this was my right as there was no other evidence (i.e. cameras) that would implicate the person involved. I said, at this stage, that it’s simply my word against his apart from the threat that was made which the co-ordinator heard and would have to deal with. The meeting ended and I resumed my duties. Approximately 13:30 I was asked to go and speak to person D and person E in the HR room where they asked about the situation and whether I was still happy working in the vicinity of the agency worker. I said I was professional and that I would not make things difficult. I was asked how I felt about the situation and I said I was not happy at being placed in the situation where I was told that any formal complaint would lead to someone losing their job. I was told that this was not the “only” outcome of such a complaint and that I must have been mistaken. I said I was not and that it was implicitly stated this was the likely outcome hence me not progressing with a formal complaint (in concurrence with the lack of evidence save for the threats which I assumed would be dealt with separately because the co-ordinator had heard them and not me).

 

I was also asked whether I wanted to visit occupational health because I felt like I had hurt my shoulder or nerve when dodging the attempted assault by the agency worker. I said I would be ok even though I was a little sore. The following day I found I had a trapped nerve and that this was too painful to come into work. However, the situation had been stressful and I felt that the attempted attack, coupled with some serious failings within the investigation of it, had led to a detriment in my state of mind. I felt that I had been prejudiced by the failure to follow a proper procedure in investigating my complaint and that my mental health issues were not properly assessed when calling me into any of the meetings. No reasonable adjustments were made to cater for my mental health issues and no support mechanism to deal with the consequential stress was offered at any stage. I was simply left to deal with the situation.

 

As a consequence I have been left with a Stage One marker on my file for a situation not of my own making and one which has caused me significant stress, embarrassment and an acute sense of victimisation or, at least, a sense that I have no value to the department. I have also been left with the distinct impression of animosity from person F who, I was informed by another colleague, was giving me “dirty looks” when walking to and from my location (out of my view) and this was supplemented with him staring at me intensely whilst I was leaving work, getting my bike and then leaving the grounds. I’ve been left with the feeling of being watched all over again and the feeling of being intimidated.

 

Furthermore, the company have been in receipt of my medical report from my Doctor for some time and worked in conjunction with HR to manage my return to work and thus have the ability to take extra care when I am being asked to enter into potentially stressful situations. Instead I have been left to fend off tense or emotionally demanding incidents without any due regard to my mental health and I have been left with the impression that not only am I not wanted in the department, but that it would be better for my mental health that I leave the company altogether such is the worrying lack of support or follow up assistance.

 

Issue 3 - Attempt to retrieve DPA Officer information.

 

I asked person G to find out the name of the Data Controller for the company UK Ltd, or at least the place I would write to, on the 29th September 2010 at 11am. He returned approximately 20 minutes later and told me that person A, the HR Advisor I have a present issue with in “Issue 1”, would be unable to give me the information required without knowing what purpose I wanted it for. Person G advised me to speak to the Main Manager, person H, to see what he could do to retrieve the information I requested. As we were quite busy I waited for an opportunity to speak to person H and approached him at approximately 12:15pm with the same question. He was quite keen to assist and looked confused that no-one was able to give me the name. He then disappeared upstairs, where I presume he went to discuss the matter with HR, and then approached me at approximately 12:45 to ask me to join him with HR to discuss the matter as it was not clear what I wanted.

 

Following person H up to HR I followed him into a room where person D and person A were sitting. The door was closed and I was asked why I wanted that information and for what purpose. I stated that all I wanted was the name of the Data Controller for the company UK Ltd and nothing more. Person D kept intimating that she would have some sort of responsibility endowed upon her to manage some of the data protection issues for the site but when I asked whether she was the named Data Controller for RS she admitted she was not. I repeated the request in clear and intelligible terms around 5 times in the course of the conversation. Person A interjected a number of times stating that there was no reason not to say why I wanted the information or for what purpose. I said, quite clearly, that it was none of anyone else’s business why I wanted it, only that I had made the request.

 

Again person A interrupted me and asked what it was I wanted. I looked to person H for some support in this matter because I felt that I made it very clear what information I wanted and that I would not be divulging what purpose I wanted that information for. Person H asked me to listen to person A once again and when I went to do so I was again, inexplicably, asked why I wanted the information. At this point I was exasperated and felt that being in that situation was becoming detrimental to my state of mind. I turned and left saying that it was a farce to be subjected to that situation when all I wanted was a name of the person responsible, overall, for UK data protection issues.

 

When I returned back into the work area I resumed my duties. Person H followed approximately 10 minutes later stating that person D was trying to find the person I required and an address to write to and that I might have to wait until the day after to be in receipt of such information. I said, in absolutely clear terms, that I was extremely distressed to have been placed in that situation where person A, being the present subject of a formal grievance raised by me, was able to continue with his line of questioning when I felt I had made it abundantly clear that I was not happy at being asked that question. I also reiterated that it was the companies UK Data Controller’s details I wanted and that I felt that any such intervention by a member of the HR team in sourcing such data would not be objective considering that person A was the subject of some of the information I wished to source.

 

However, it should not have been incumbent upon me to have to explain why I required the information to be given to me. That is absolutely at odds with the entire process of confidentiality. If I require specific details regarding a formal grievance procedure which has involved a member of the HR team, would it be a suitable exercise for that person to be requested to source information relating to it on my behalf? It is absolutely not necessary for me to do so and I should not have been placed in an intimidating position in a room with 3 other people all badgering me for reasons why I wanted to make such a request.

 

The entire situation was extremely uncomfortable particularly because I was not forewarned that person A would be in the room with the head of HR. Had person A not been in the same room I might have felt more comfortable in explaining why I wanted such information. To be placed in a situation where I would have had to actively request person A leave the room or request that he not be in attendance with person H and person D was extremely distressing and placed a considerable burden upon me to stand my ground with 3 senior persons of the company in the same room.

 

No thought or regard was given to my mental health in being placed in that situation and I felt harassed by the continued line of questioning hence leaving the room in haste. I also felt that person A was acting abnomally in making some quite petulant faces that I am more likely to see from my 16 year step-daughter. I felt he was acting unprofessionally in his line of questioning by continually pressing the issue and I also felt that person D was also guilty of the same. In the end person D got on the phone appearing to try and speak to someone who could give her the information I needed. However, this was completely at odds with her previous comments to me that she worked directly under the Data Controller as she was responsible for managing the companies data protection issues. If she works directly under the Data Controller, why would she need to make any further enquiries? There was either an attempt to stop me from getting that information or all 3 people in the room did not know.

 

Upon consideration I believe it is the former for three reasons;

 

1 - the obtuse questioning I had received since 11am on the day of my request as to why I required such information;

 

2 - the continued pressure once in the room to explain why I wanted that information;

 

3 – the time in which it has taken to even get someone to investigate who the data controller is ( approx. 3 hours)

 

The only reason for not knowing that information resides with the embarrassing assertion by person A that she worked under the direct or indirect supervision of the company Data Controller but did not know who they were. I know my immediate co-ordinator, the area co-ordinator, the main manager, the site controller, the UK General Manager and even the order in which all of the associates started to work for the company. It is incredulous that person D would not know who the data controller was for the company in light of her admission that she works as part of the data protection team. A cursory glance at the Information Commissioner’s register of Data Controllers shows that the processing centre for data protection resides with XXXX; therefore there is no data processing controller associated with the site according to the information which the company has informed the Information Commissioner of.

 

I conversation with person H felt tense because he believed that I was being helped by person D and person A as opposed to being stonewalled. I explained why this was not the case by simply reiterating that it was not for me to explain why I wanted certain information. I said I did not wanted anyone at the site knowing the reasons for my request considering the nature of the request I was going to make. Person H explained that even he was not certain what information I wanted until I had explained that I wanted no-one at the site to handle the information. I said that I had made it absolutely crystal clear that all I wanted was the name of the data controller for UK which, I felt, was a 6 minute job.

 

I was called at home at 17:30 (29-09-10) by person H who informed me that the person with overall data responsibility was person X, Manager and that I was more than welcome to call hum directly from the sit when I was in work the next day.

 

I would like it placed on record that I am grateful for person H for not only getting the information to me but that he understood that my frustrations were not only valid but allowed me the opportunity to “vent” this frustration so to speak with no apparent prejudice towards me on his part. We do have a major disagreement regarding the attitude of person A and the obvious issue that I believe that both HR members were doing nothing to help at all considering the nature and scope of my question.

 

Again, I reiterate, I wanted the name of the Data Controller of UK Ltd for obtaining personal information regarding the formal grievance process with person A. It would have been prejudicial to my case to have explained this whilst person A was in the same room and I felt intimidated by being placed in this situation.

 

I trust that I have covered every issue in both accurate detail and with a comprehensiveness that allows you to address all of the concerns in full. In the meantime, if I need to clarify any matter raised I am happy to meet for a preliminary meeting to cover those points.

 

Sounds rather long and covoluted... essentially though I think this will boil down to X causes of action:

 

1) Harassment from another employee while absent

2) Intrusive questioning from employer while absent

3) Discrimination in not allowing formal grievance procedure to take place earlier & the company not making reasonable adjustments to allow such a meeting to take place

4) Not arranging Occupational Health support to take place upon return to work

5) Counting absences related to mental health disability within the absence score and giving me official warnings for them

6) Causing unnecessary stress thus exacerbating my mental health condition

 

Any comments???

 

Letter 2.doc

 

Letter 1.doc

Edited by vjohn82
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

NOTICE The content of this post and of any replies to it may assist in or relate to the formulation of strategy tactics etcetera in a legal action. This post and any replies to it should be assumed to be legally privileged and therefore must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to outside of the Consumer Action Group ("CAG") Forum on which it was originally posted. If you are reading this material in any form other than an on-line HTML resource and legitimately accessed via a URL commencing "http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o.uk" then it has been obtained by improper means and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. Your attention is drawn to the Written Standards for the Conduct of Professional Work issued by the Bar Standards Board under heading 7, "Documents".

 

 

 

I beg your pardon? You do understand what a public internet forum is? How on earth can somone obtain "by improper means" documentation that is on an open public forum on an internet site which is open access?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am a barrister specialising in employment law, and only represent employees. My advice on employment issues is advice - not legal opinion - and is based only on the facts you provide. If you want an accurate assessment of your case and prospects, you should get legal opinion from a lawyer - not a public forum. Anything I tell you is for guidance only, and is based on my experience of the law in the context of what details you provide.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Link to post
Share on other sites

I beg your pardon? You do understand what a public internet forum is? How on earth can somone obtain "by improper means" documentation that is on an open public forum on an internet site which is open access?

 

Sorry, I'm extremely active on the Legal forum with regard to statute barred debts etc... this is a signature that I use generically. Generally speaking legal privilege is granted to those seeking legal advice. I was recently in a court case where the other side had obtained information from the CAG forums and attempted to use it against the Defendant... the Judge stated that the Defendant was able to seek advice and that they should not be prejudiced in court by the advice being given by others (i.e. if others were suggesting that the Defendant ignore a debt or deliberately not pay etc).

 

With respect to this being a public forum; that's correct. However, the intention of the forum owners is for the information to be read "online" as this is the medium by which all communications take place. If a solicitors firm is printing information off without permission this could be considered a breach of data protection because they will be holding personal details without any authority to do so. Therefore accessing this information outside of the pretext of the forum owners intention could be considered a breach of litigation privilege if the information obtained is going to be used against a Defendant.

 

In the case I mentioned above the Defendant won by virtue of the Claimant's discontinuance so no case law subsequently exists; but the Judge made it clear, in no uncertain terms, that litigation privilege is afforded to all even if sought via the internet. One would have to question the intention of a firm of solicitors trying to entrap a Defendant using the words of other forum users.

 

Therefore my signature is a general disclaimer that anyone accessing this post OUTSIDE of the pretext of the forum (i.e. printed off without permission and disseminated) could be seen as breaching litigation privilege. It's more relevant elsewhere on the forum I suspect, but it's my signature although can't take credit for it...

 

Now, I'd like to get back to the actual topic of discussion. Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Harassment from another employee while absent

A welfare phone call is not harassment the most you could hope for is an apology

2) Intrusive questioning from employer while absent

An employer has a right to ask questions regarding any period of absence. You are contracted to attend work if you are unable to attend work the employer needs to know why and how long your absence will be. This will help them determine whether or not you are capable of work. Sickness is not a given right it’s a benefit if your employer allows absence through sickness

 

3) Discrimination in not allowing formal grievance procedure to take place earlier

& the company not making reasonable adjustments to allow such a meeting to take place

If your employer has not followed their own procedures in handling your grievance then this maybe an oversight. Your employer doesn’t have to listen to your grievance though it is best practice too. Your employer has not discriminated against you nor have they failed to make a reasonable adjustment

4) Not arranging Occupational Health support to take place upon return to work

Your employer is not obliged too, Is your depression caused by work

5) Counting absences related to mental health disability within the absence score and giving me official warnings for them

If you are absent from work your employer has a right to manage absence. Just because you have been diagnosed with depression doesn’t stop an employer managing sickness.

6) Causing unnecessary stress thus exacerbating my mental health condition

What would you hope for in the way of a desired outcome - An apology

Link to post
Share on other sites

VJ

 

I am not sure from reading this whether the company have provided you with their policy on handling absence and sickness and also their policy on employment of people with a disability, as depression is a disability and should be covered by legislation on this. Also were they aware of your illness when they employed you? Has the actual employment affected your illness in any way and could the employer have done anything about this? All this is key.

 

The last post is perfectly correct that it is usually for HR to be allowed to contact a person on sick leave - this should never be your manager and their absence policy should cover this. Occupational Health usually kicks in after a 6 month absence or if the illness is work related

 

In my very personal opinion HR are a profession second only to debt collectors and estate agents in being totally useless members of society and one of the reasons I now work for myself.

 

Another good source of information on this can be trade unions, if there is an appropriate one you could contact/join - note can be as they are not all the same.

Edited by coledog
Age and disability

At your Service

 

Please Double click the Star and leave a message if I have helped you

 

Please support CAG and they will support you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've added my thoughts in blue:

 

1) Harassment from another employee while absent

A welfare phone call is not harassment the most you could hope for is an apology

 

Where is it made clear that this was a welfare call? It seems to me that this was at best a cack-handed attempt to garner information, undertaken by an individual whose ignorance of mental health issues led to him acting in an inappropriately judgemental manner.

 

 

2) Intrusive questioning from employer while absent

An employer has a right to ask questions regarding any period of absence. You are contracted to attend work if you are unable to attend work the employer needs to know why and how long your absence will be. This will help them determine whether or not you are capable of work. Sickness is not a given right it’s a benefit if your employer allows absence through sickness

An employer may be able to ask questions regarding absence. However, they do not actually have a right to medically confidential information, and length of absence may be difficult or impossible to predict, especially with mental health. I would question how an employer is qualified to interpret such information anyway. It is very clear in this case that the person calling was not in a position to understand the condition or the potential sequelae and outcomes. If the employer has an Occ Health advisor, it would be more appropriate for them to undertake any investigation and then provide advice to management. Clinical data should be restricted to medically qualified personnel. Indeed, ICO cites this as best practice in its guidance to employers. Sickness is a fact of life, I am unaware of any instance of any person in history being entirely illness and injury free, but do feel free to reference a journal article or similar if you know different. Absence through sickness is the subject of legislation, not a benefit some employers allow.

 

 

3) Discrimination in not allowing formal grievance procedure to take place earlier

& the company not making reasonable adjustments to allow such a meeting to take place

If your employer has not followed their own procedures in handling your grievance then this maybe an oversight. Your employer doesn’t have to listen to your grievance though it is best practice too. Your employer has not discriminated against you nor have they failed to make a reasonable adjustment

 

An employer failing to correctly follow procedures may well be falling foul of employment legislation, as I think VJohn mentions later. An employer is obliged by law to have a grievance procedure, so does in fact have to listen to grievances. I'm not sure whether this amounts to discrimination, though the employer certainly seems to be acting in a prejudicial way. Where does VJohn say that this constitutes a reasonable adjustment being asked for and declined?

 

 

4) Not arranging Occupational Health support to take place upon return to work

Your employer is not obliged too, Is your depression caused by work

 

Really? Whatever happened to an employer's duty of care? This employer has Occupational Health arrangements; denying access to them may well be a breach, irrespective of the cause of the depression.

 

5) Counting absences related to mental health disability within the absence score and giving me official warnings for them

If you are absent from work your employer has a right to manage absence. Just because you have been diagnosed with depression doesn’t stop an employer managing sickness.

 

The employer may be entitled to do this, but it strikes me as a particularly counter-productive process.

 

 

6) Causing unnecessary stress thus exacerbating my mental health condition

What would you hope for in the way of a desired outcome - An apology

 

Making someone's condition worse will usually lead to rather more substantial compensation than an apology. If someone at work had a bad back, and the employer knew that heavy lifting would make it worse, and then made them lift heavy weights, is it ok for them just to say 'sorry'?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Scarlet... nice to see a constructive post rather than one which doesn't really understand the issues.

 

I'll come back with the letter they wrote to me later on.

 

Thanks again too coledog... always nice to see you around :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

VJohn, there's an interesting report at http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2007-2008/rrep513.pdf. It's fairly heavy going but there's some useful stuff in it. For example, it highlights the lack of 'mental health literacy' (understanding of mental health issues) amongst employers, and also shows that employers are much more likely to be unhelpful with mental health as opposed to physical conditions. Some of it could be useful to you in making your case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello again.

 

This doesn't help you directly, if at all, but I know all about breakdowns, anxiety depression and sickness management. My HR used to ring me and stress me out every week or two, because they have no idea [or training, I imagine] in mental health. As SP says, it's hard to assess and it can't be x-rayed to see when you might be better, like a broken limb.

 

In my case, OH were very helpful and gave work some sort of steer on where to go.

 

My best, HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the link vj

 

Harassment - Doubtful one phone that you did not agree with does not constitute harassment

 

Can you prove everything you say regarding the comments made - if not will a tribunal side with your version of events against your employers version of events - good luck with that one

 

Depression in your words clinical depression. Depression is not a progressive condition and not automatically covered under the dda.

 

If you are saying that depression is causing an adverse effect on your normal day to day activities, memory etc then I hope you can give evidence to this effect, the tribunal will need to be satisfied that one of the capacities are met.

 

Again a company has the right to manage sickness and absence as they see appropriate and in accordance with their sick and absence policy.

 

What do you expect them to do? What have you asked for?

 

OH - What is stopping you asking for a referral to see the Oh?

 

Your grievance wasn’t delt with in accordance with your companies grievance procedures. The legislation regarding the sgdp was repelled in 2009 and have been replaced with a code of practice. A grievance procedure is a contractual right, are you going to sue for a breach of contract? As there is no financial loss I think not.

 

Good luck with whatever you hope to achieve

Link to post
Share on other sites

Harassment - Doubtful one phone that you did not agree with does not constitute harassment

 

Actually, it does.

 

Can you prove everything you say regarding the comments made - if not will a tribunal side with your version of events against your employers version of events - good luck with that one

 

I've already said that the employee concerned has admitted that their behaviour and comments were not acceptable and that their manager has spoken to them about it. I'm not entirely satisfied with the response but the admission is there.

 

Depression in your words clinical depression. Depression is not a progressive condition and not automatically covered under the dda.

 

Really?

 

"For example, someone with a mild form of depression with only minor effects may not be covered, while someone with severe depression with substantial effects on their daily life is likely to be considered as disabled under the Act." http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/HealthAndSupport/MentalHealth/DG_10023351

 

Looks like you're wrong again.

 

If you are saying that depression is causing an adverse effect on your normal day to day activities, memory etc then I hope you can give evidence to this effect, the tribunal will need to be satisfied that one of the capacities are met.

 

Why would you "hope" that I can do those things? The mere fact I have spent nearly a year from being able to do normal day to day activities, along with Doctor's Certificates, is evidence enough. The continued management of my symptoms allows me to lead a relatively normal life thanks.

 

Again a company has the right to manage sickness and absence as they see appropriate and in accordance with their sick and absence policy.

 

Errrr, no they can not. They have to abide by statutory legislation. I've also confirmed above that the employer has admitted not following their S&A policy.

 

What do you expect them to do? What have you asked for?

 

At this stage I think that the best place for this to be assessed is by someone objective outside of the company. What I have asked for are relatively simple things and all within the remit of "reasonable adjustments".

 

OH - What is stopping you asking for a referral to see the Oh?

 

Nothing aside from the fact I have already asked on a number of occasions and have been rebuffed on those occasions. Only today have I actually taken the steps formally to get an OH appointment which, upon my threat to have this dealt with by a third party, has finally been granted.

 

Your grievance wasn’t delt with in accordance with your companies grievance procedures. The legislation regarding the sgdp was repelled in 2009 and have been replaced with a code of practice. A grievance procedure is a contractual right, are you going to sue for a breach of contract? As there is no financial loss I think not.

 

There doesn't necessarily need to be a financial loss but in this case I feel I was prevented from returning to work earlier by the employer's actions (under vicarious liability) and this caused me to take a financial hit wage wise.

 

Oh and since when were the statutory grievance procedures repealed in their entirety? Try looking in The Employment Act 2008 The Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) (Amendment) Regulations 2008 where statutory grievance provisions are now found.

 

Good luck with whatever you hope to achieve.

 

I seriously doubt your sincerity. Not only are your explanations extremely poor but there seems to be a distinct lack of understanding about the issues I have raised and about employer liabilities. I also suspect you have some sort of prejudice towards people with mental health issues. I suspect that you think I am a weak individual with no capacity for thought or intelligent opinion; sorry to disappoint but I happen to be quite functional still and do not walk around talking to myself and climbing the walls.

 

Now if you don't mind colin813 I would like to converse with other CAGGERS who have more rounded thoughts on this issue and are content not to troll around trying to make others feel stupid and worthless; your own posts are crude, ill informed, badly formatted, devoid of rational thought and insincere.

 

Your attempt at subversion might have worked on someone else but do not take my "disability" for weakness; I'm sooooo far from it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Colin

 

I appreciate that you are trying to help, but I wonder if your enthusiasm may have eclipsed your knowledge.

 

I do not know what your usual line of work is, but I suspect that you do not work in health care. I do. Here is the first line of Wikipedia's page on the signs and symptoms of depression, which I have used to to save typing:

 

Major depression significantly affects a person's family and personal relationships, work or school life, sleeping and eating habits, and general health.

 

I think we can be certain that depression has an adverse effect on the sufferer's activities of daily living. There are any number of very well researched articles in all the major journals, as well as many textbooks on mental health that confirm this, though I have yet to read one that claims either that depression leads to an improvement in affect and the ability to manage daily activities, or has no effect at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, SP. Anyone who hasn't been through true depression really can't understand what it does to a person. If you're lucky enough to come out the other side, you can look back and think how odd it was. But at the time.....

 

HB x

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again thanks for your responses afterall this forum is for open debate.

 

There is a guidance that concerns the defination of disability in the Act. Section 3 of the Act enables the Secretary of State to issue guidance about matters to be taken into account in determining whether a person is a disabled person. This guidance does not impose any legal obligations in itself, nor is it an authoritive statement in law. However, section 3 (3) of the act requires that an adjudicating body which is determining for any purpose of the act whether a person is a disabled person, must take into account any aspect of the guidance in which it appears to be relevent.

 

In order to be protected by the act, a person must meet the Acts defination of disability.

 

This meams in general

 

a - the person must have an impairmrnt that is either physical or mental

b - the impairment must have adverse effects which are substantial

c - the substantilal adverse effects must be long term

d - the long term substantial adverse effects must be effects on normal day to day activities

 

You will need medical support that you meet the above, being diagnosed with depression isnt enough.

 

If you dont like what i say vj you need to seek legal advice to clarify what you believe in.

 

Im sure our resident legal eagle will be along soon to put her view on this post.

 

There is no need to beed rude vj or assume what i say is an attack on you. The forum is for open debate, if you dont like the response dont post in an open forum

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im sure our resident legal eagle will be along soon to put her view on this post.

 

There is no need to beed rude vj or assume what i say is an attack on you. The forum is for open debate, if you dont like the response dont post in an open forum

 

Hi Colin - if you are referring to me, it isn't very likely after the response I got the last time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am a barrister specialising in employment law, and only represent employees. My advice on employment issues is advice - not legal opinion - and is based only on the facts you provide. If you want an accurate assessment of your case and prospects, you should get legal opinion from a lawyer - not a public forum. Anything I tell you is for guidance only, and is based on my experience of the law in the context of what details you provide.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Link to post
Share on other sites

Colin Mate

 

you must work for the section of the DWP or Tory Party that does not yet own a spell checker, I suggest that you consult your manager who may confirm the total buullworks you are spouting.

 

As for the 'legal eagle' we will 'see you in court', as they say.

At your Service

 

Please Double click the Star and leave a message if I have helped you

 

Please support CAG and they will support you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

a - the person must have an impairmrnt that is either physical or mental

b - the impairment must have adverse effects which are substantial

c - the substantilal adverse effects must be long term

d - the long term substantial adverse effects must be effects on normal day to day activities

 

You will need medical support that you meet the above, being diagnosed with depression isnt enough.

 

There is no need to beed rude vj or assume what i say is an attack on you. The forum is for open debate, if you dont like the response dont post in an open forum

 

colin813 - I refuse to go into every exact detail about my illness. Needless to say I am more than covered under the Act having suffered from Clinical Depression since the age of 15 and experienced severe bouts of the illness leading to suicidal attempts.

 

I meet A, B, C and D of the above...

 

I might also mention that it is the duty of the employer to ensure the health and safety of employees and that as my illness should be identified under the DDA that an OH review would have been a reasonable, if not necessary step, for the employer to take upon my return to work. The employer would also be under a duty not to exacerbate my condition further which I feel they have done.

 

Hi Colin - if you are referring to me, it isn't very likely after the response I got the last time.

 

Boo hoo... judging by the advice you give I feel I am better off ;-)

 

vjohn, you have left someone's name in one of your letters. Suggest you remove it to protect yourself and CAG.

 

HB

 

Done... thanks for noticing :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Colin Mate

 

you must work for the section of the DWP or Tory Party that does not yet own a spell checker, I suggest that you consult your manager who may confirm the total buullworks you are spouting.

 

As for the 'legal eagle' we will 'see you in court', as they say.

 

There does seem to be a real animosity towards mental health. I think the people who are trying to get the gory details or even questioning why I feel I would fall under the relevant legislation need some help themselves.

 

Thanks CD :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, SP. Anyone who hasn't been through true depression really can't understand what it does to a person. If you're lucky enough to come out the other side, you can look back and think how odd it was. But at the time.....

 

HB x

 

Thanks for the support... it's been an uphill battle and one in which I have strived to lead a normal, balanced and fulfilling life. I've helped numerous people on this forum from my own time to give something back and give hope to those who feel helpless. There is strength in weakness at times... my record here speaks for itself thankfully.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...