8

Flexible Working Request - rejection/appeal

We have a teacher (HoD), currently full time, who has requested flexible working to change to part time working, reducing his TT to 0.8 or potentially 0.6 and giving up all pastoral responsiblities (he is currently a tutor).  He has a fairly high absence record due to ill health, but for a variety of reasons, not one specific cause.  He lives a considerable distance from the school and is finding the commute onerous and also he does not respond well at stressful times of the year, eg courswork deadlines cause him "work related stress".  He has not given health issues as a reason for his request, though he did mention the commuting.

We have turned down his request, having put a number of compromise positions to him which he has declined.  There are clear business reasons for doing so, which fall within the 8 admissible reasons, including inability to re-distribute workload (we do not have any more full time staff to put into his tutoring role if he gives this up), and detriment to pupil's learning, as he is the only subject specialist and the quality of the teaching would suffer if we used other staff to cover the teaching he does not want to do.  He wants to retain all of his exam classes and not teach KS3, but also wants to work 4 days per week - it is also impossible to timetable this.

Since we turned down his request, he has told us that his GP has recommended that he reduce his workload in this way.  He has now also just been off sick for 4 days, and has returned with  a doctor's note to say that he should do core teaching only, and be excused all other duties on the grounds of acute rhinitis (he is a DT teacher) exacerbated by work environment (he tells me this is the dust created in DT - although extraction is properly managed and monitored), and work related stress.  The sick notes specifically requests altered hours and amended duties - "no additional cover work, no duties, no work outside of core teaching hours".

He has also just sent in an appeal to our Governors about the rejection of his FWR.  

My questions are:

Are we still within our rights to refuse the request given that it is still impossible for us to accommodate despite the health grounds he now raises?

Is there any danger that he can claim to be suffering from a disability?

Does the appeal simply consider the case on the evidence available at the time the request was rejected, or do they need to take into account the GPs return to work note now?

Would it be wise to send him to Occ Health (we do not have our own, but I can arrange)?

Can we challenge the return to work note?  The GP quotes the "work environment" which this person describes to me as the dusty cold DT workshop, but states that the teaching must remain, but the duties, less stressful and carried out in non-dusty and warm environments, must be dropped!  This seems contradictory.

He has told me he wants to retire and would have gone this year, but financially this is not possible for him.  Would early retirement on health grounds be an option we could offer to support?

Thank you!

Lesley

781 views
  • Yes you should send him to Occ Health as a matter of urgency but with very specific questions rather than just a general request.

    When you have Occ Health advice and given your additional knowledge of the environment of course you can challenge the Fit Note - the GP only knows part of the story. But there is little point often engaging in a dialogue with them. Rather its all part of the evidence that your Governors will review. The GP is not competent to judge your work environment without far more information.

    Yes he might be considered disabled.

    If it really is impossible for you to accommodate his requests then even if he is disabled and even if his GP recommends it you are at liberty to reject them.

    Personally I would have the Governors review what you know now rather than trying to fix this at some point in the past. Its about finding a solution that works now.

    Ill health retirement may be an option - but its not free and it (at the moment) doesn't sound like he is ill enough to benefit.
  • In reply to Keith:

    Great Keith, so helpful and clear. Thank you.
  • In reply to Lesley Woodward:

    One more question
    So if we cannot accommodate his requests, and he is not prepared to revert to his full time role, would we dismiss on medical capability grounds?

    I am also slightly concerned because he has been on somewhat reduced duties for several years, due to his stress etc (reasonable adjustments), and was returned to full role in September 16 having stated that he felt much better and more able to cope. Because the previous situation was allowed to run on for a few years, does that now become a weakness for us, in that custom and practice has been established over a period of time and it could be argued that if we could accommodate it then, why can't we now? (It is to do with adding to the workload of colleagues and we want to call a halt to this and do not want to cause detriment to them again by reducing the pressure on this member of staff).
  • In reply to Lesley Woodward:

    The previous situation certainly needs to be looked at with clear eyes and you need to ask the question of yourselves "if we could accommodate this for an extended period before, why can't we do it now?" But if you're satisfied that your answer is reasonable, then you shouldn't consider that a risk or weakness.

    If you won't accommodate his needs, a compromise can't be reached and he can't work under his current conditions, the only alternative to dismissal on the grounds of capability would be some sort of settlement agreement that will allow him to resign with grace and a financially-justifiable pay-off.
  • I hope this isn't a silly question: if he gets an allergic reaction to dust, can't he wear a dust mask? One to ask OH perhaps?
  • In reply to Robey:

    Thank you Robey. Yes, I have put forward the possibility of a financial settlement, but this is not currently a favoured way forward, mainly due to setting precedent. I have now set up an OH referral, which he had verbally agreed to, but he is now dragging his feet over signing the consent form, due to being to busy with pressure of work! Very frustrating. We have said that if he won't move forward on this in a timely manner we will be obliged to make assumptions about his fitness for work without the benefit of the OH report. Can't help feeling he is deliberately dragging things out.
  • In reply to Elizabeth Divver:

    Well I think he does, when he is using machinery and working on practical skills, but he is in the workshop all the time for his lessons, and can't wear a dust mask when he is teaching theory etc, as he needs to be able to communicate and interact with his students. We also have a good dust extraction system.
  • In reply to Lesley Woodward:

    Hi Lesley
    How confident is your employer that the (presume it's wood) dust extraction system is working *effectively* - however potentially-effective it might be?
    Irrespective of the personal OH, think you might need to get in a specialist to measure and report on the typical dust levels in that workshop, both during dust-generating activities and teaching sessions. These need to be well within normal threshold limits, otherwise your employers are in serious breach of H & S / COSHH regulations
    If this teacher nonetheless  has a medical condition that makes him personally unfit to work teaching in this area *and* if adjustments to make it so aren't reasonably possible then a capability dismissal following due process might well be entirely fair and it might be well worth getting on with working towards that.
    Faced with either almost certain dismissal with little prospect of compensation or an even modest settlement agreement, the teacher might very well opt for the latter. You say that your employer doesn;t want to do this for fear of setting a precedent - unless there are very special circumstances, I can't think that's a valid objection at all and a modest SA might be cheap at the price in order to fully resolve the matter for good and quickly too