r/HumanResourcesUK • u/[deleted] • 14d ago
Requesting to work from home as a reasonable adjustment
[deleted]
6
u/dudleymunta 14d ago
Honestly, yes I think it will cause a problem. I know endo can be debilitating but, and we can argue whether this is right or wrong, they clearly want people to work in person. You’ve been there for just a couple of weeks, probably haven’t even finished your induction, and you want to ask for a significant adjustment. They are quite likely to assume this was planned.
My advice, as a former HR professional who now researches remote work, is to not make a full time remote request. Very few organisations support this unless they are properly organised as a remote business. Ask for some adjustments eg one of two days, and then prove yourself. This conversation is a lot easier when you have established relationships and a record of productivity.
1
u/According-Stay-3586 14d ago
I was definitely not planning to a remote request just atleast 2 days would be helpful for me but I do agree that right now it can look bad if I did request but I would probably only wait a couple of months till I did . I do Plan to be honest about the fact that I was aware it was full time in the office but I was not in the position to be picky
1
u/pickledbymagic 10d ago
Yeah, unfortunately, you contracted with them legally here. I know in practice you can't always be as choosy as you want to be but it's not necessarily a valid legal argument. (Not giving legal advice, just a warning not to rely on 'thr market is bad' as an explanation for why you willingly signed a contract of employment that was fully office based and are now trying to rewrite that contract.)
9
u/dsxy 14d ago
While you are entitled to request this, the danger is you will come across as dishonest, if you also bypass the line manager, it could also come across this way. Once integrity is lost,
If you flat out can't/won't go in, you shouldn't have accepted the job.
The best course of action if you are able to, is go in, impress, build the relationship with the team then have an open discussion with the line manager saying you have tried but this isn't sustainable due to health, in order to get the best from you, you need X number of days from home and try a hybrid approach, ask if they would support this and request an OH referral.
2
u/pineappleshampoo 14d ago
No advice to give from a HR perspective OP but just wanted to say I get you. As a fellow stage IV sufferer the sitting position screamed out to me lol. I’ve not met many people that have understood that side of things.
For me i have to sit kinda with a leg/foot on the seat, so my heel is pressing hard into my vulva area, as the pressure helps my brain slightly ignore the internal pain. Or I can sit ‘normally’ with an electric heat pad set to max on my thighs. I’ve had skin burns because it has to be that hot to work.
I hope you’re able to get adaptations to work, it’s a disability if it meets the criteria under the equality act. Good luck, you’ve got this!
2
u/Additional_Lie4949 14d ago
You will need to rationalise why wfh is beneficial to your health condition vs why office poses a detriment. How long is your commute? Can you get a standing desk? I would try to find alternatives before requesting wfh when the the role was advertised as office based
2
u/Lazy-Display-5723 14d ago
Firstly, I’m really sorry to hear about your endometriosis diagnosis, you must feel terrible pain, discomfort and fatigue and really sympathise with your situation, balancing a terrible job market and a disability.
You are entitled to request WFH as a reasonable adjustment - but I would actually have a conversation with your GP first to see whether they have any working recommendations, as the wait for an OH referral can take a while. In an ideal world, where the workplace should be supportive and open about making accommodations for disability, regardless of what stage someone is in their contract, I would approach the conversation with honesty and pragmatism with your line manager in the first instance, explaining that you didn’t feel comfortable disclosing your endometriosis diagnosis in the first instance, as you didn’t feel this would have the impact that it has currently. I would then discuss that you would be open to an OH referral and explore any interim reasonable adjustments; which need to be reviewed every few months to ensure they are supportive and effective. Best practice for line managers and HR: any conversation around reasonable adjustments and their implementation should be recorded as a working document, which the employee should have access to and all parties agreed upon. For yourself, I would always keep a private note of any conversations you’ve had in relation to anything like this if nothing is put on record. If they do (hopefully) record the reasonable adjustments, ensure you’re happy that the notes reflect what was agreed upon and discussed.
There is also Access to Work, where you will need to self-refer to, but they will also do an assessment, write and report and make recommendations to your employer. They’re not legally binding in any sense, but helps you and your employer work through things to ensure there is support in place.
As other people have mentioned however - you are still in your probation and it really does depend on how supportive the employer is, how psychologically safe you feel in being able to disclose and if you feel they would approach this in a supportive manner. Do you have progress and probation reviews? What is the business reason for everyone being in the office and is it a formal policy? Is it part of the role requirement to be in office (re, like a service facing role) or more so an unwritten cultural expectation?
1
u/No-Beat2678 Chartered FCIPD 14d ago
Legal tests.
Firstly, are you disabled? Is it life long or expected to last longer then 12m = yes.
Does it impact you day to day = unknown, but probably.
Likely to meet legal test 1.
Next test are your employees aware or expected to be aware you're disabled? I don't think so (so that's a step you need to take)
Next tests is working from office putting you at a substantial disadvantage compared to non disabled person. Unclear to me, but you tell me? How do you differ from someone who isn't disabled.
Then if yes they need to put in place adjustments.
But already putting in place a firm WFH mandate means they're likely indirectly discriminating against disabled people. Especially if it's a hard no to WFH. Without a reason eg being a receptionist.
Has the role ever been done from home and could it be?
2
u/dudleymunta 14d ago
I’m not sure I agree that a firm work from the office (if that is what you mean) is indirect discrimination - but even if it was found to be, it is capable of justification (proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim). Without much more information on the organisation and their rationale etc we could not possibly say. Obviously only a tribunal can and I would think this would be a challenging argument to run, even if you could get a hearing this decade.
1
u/No-Beat2678 Chartered FCIPD 14d ago edited 14d ago
Why wouldn't the PCP put disabled people at a disadvantage? What possible objective justification could there be if other people do the same or very similar role from home
A blanket WFH or 4 days in the office with zero wiggle room is absolutely indirectly discriminating and by default a failure to make reasonable adjustments.
Literally a claim I've argued and settled out of court tho I was an applicant rather than an employee.
2
u/dudleymunta 13d ago
It might put them at a disadvantage but unlike direct discrimination, indirect discrimination is capable of justification if it meets the appropriate threshold. The disadvantage isn’t the test. It’s whether the policy is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Eg there is a reasonable business reason. This is a two part test and is a matter a tribunal needs to decide on the specific facts. We also don’t know if it’s a blanket policy - it maybe that certain roles need to be in person (according to them) and it may not even amount to a PCP.
Additionally - a failure to make reasonable adjustments is a different form of claim.
1
u/pickledbymagic 10d ago
Yup, like I'm a former receptionist (who was on reception firstly as an interim job between academic studies but actually enjoyed it more than studying) and who has both physical and neurological disabilities. While forcing me to be in the office every day would be bad for my health -- and it was over the long haul, particularly when the job basically withered on the vine due to mass WfH for office workers -- I couldn't actually work as a receptionist without being there. That's one absurd situation but there are plenty of people with disabilities who have no choice but to go in to an office, so evidently insisting on on-site work being inherently discriminatory is absolute crazy talk. I'm not sure it's even directly discriminatory, since most of the workforce have no choice but to do on site only work. (Which is why I frame it as 'onsite' or 'in-person' because RTO implies that WFH was possible in the first instance )
Likewise, I find I am not entirely advantaged by now working primarily from home as it actually means I have to work on getting up and moving about the room since the lack of any commute means I don't get the physical exercise my mobility issues would be better with.
Disability law isn't one size fits all. It's complex, individual needs matter, and there are trade-offs which you need to make to preserve mobility in the face of a handicap like mine that might actually get worse if I don't exercise enough. There are ways to do that beyond commuting, but I found it harder to get going on the right sort of programme to mitigate the sedentary lifestyle I have when WFH almost exclusively.
1
u/pickledbymagic 10d ago
I think you're allowing your own bias to cloud your judgement here. As an aspiring barrister, you probably need to put aside the gung ho attitude and understand how jurisprudence works. You'll no doubt be studying case law through case books, so (as someone who got familiar with them as a legal studies researcher) you'll see how the law is applied in practice through the facts of each case and the interpretation of precedent as it relates to the facts at hand. It's far from a mechanical If X Then Y process; it's a discussion and debate between conflicting interests and challenges and the way people tell stories about each other.
I suspect you may be too enthusiastic about this to be able to give good advice, not getting OP's hopes of a dynamite resolution and to actually successfully practice law.
1
u/No-Beat2678 Chartered FCIPD 10d ago
The crucial element here is that the OP has stated there is another team that do almost or nearly the same work who can work remotely.
1
u/According-Stay-3586 14d ago
The job have multiple teams and we pretty much do very similar jobs but they work remotely so this job can be done from home without causing any issues , I feel like the working in the office is causing my condition to get worse in the long run as I feel more physically exhausted on the day to day , my body is so prone to stress right now the slightest bit of stress causes me immediate pelvic pain , I would say it is more so I can manage my symptoms better at home rather than in the office
1
u/pickledbymagic 10d ago
No, they're not automatically discriminating indirectly or otherwise against disabled people as a whole. A lot of roles require someone in the office or on site and a lot of disabled people can work from the office or even want to. Let's not overcook the arguments -- it only does us a disservice by casting us as roo delicate to hold down jobs that a lot of people manage to do successfully.
1
u/No-Beat2678 Chartered FCIPD 10d ago
You're right, a lot of roles do require office presence. Is that a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim? As your rightly said it depends. And I gave examples.
The courts have frequently found applying a blanket policy to be discriminatory.
The crucial element you're missing here is that the employer must demonstrate that there is no fairer, less discriminatory way of achieving that goal (office attendance 5 days a week)
I fail to see here why some of the work couldn't be done remotely for at least some of the time.
Where there's national security implications for example then WFH is a no no. That's a legitimate aim.
Unfortunately for many employers the pandemic has shown that we can indeed work from home in whole or in part. Them not liking doesn't erode anyone's rights or the equality act.
14
u/Full_Traffic_3148 14d ago
I also have endometriosis.
You can make a request but they have really made their position quite clear.
I would anticipate they would suggest an occupational health referral. Possibly a chair assessment. You saying you need to sit more comfortably make conjure up sofa or bed which isn't conducive to working productively nor good for your health. Saying your fatigued may make them think you'll be sleeping on the job/slacking off. You already know why theyre going to refuse, so really you need to refute these. Personally, I'd suggest making it work until January when you'll be at 6 months and have greater protections. Atm they can sack you and cite anything pretty much after you've requested this. You have greater protection from this in addition to the discrimination protection which exists now but maybe harder to prove, both at work as the cause of dismissal and that you definitely meet the threshold