Tag: Sickness

Categories
Disability Duty of Care Employment Law Equality Act 2010 Health and Safety HR Lousha Reynolds Mental Health Neurodiversity Reasonable Adjustments Risk Assessment Sick Pay Stress

Stress at Work: More than just a bad day

Woman with head in her hands leans over a desk with a laptop in front of her

As we mark Stress Awareness Week 2026, we’re looking at the legal framework that governs mental health in the UK workplace.

Stress isn’t just a HR issue. It’s a significant legal responsibility. Whether you’re managing a team or navigating your own workload, understanding the boundaries of the law is essential for a healthy, compliant work environment.

1. The legal duty of care

Under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, employers have a statutory duty to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety, and welfare of their employees. This isn’t limited to hard hats and trip hazards. It includes mental wellbeing, too.

  • Risk Assessments: Just as you’d assess the dangers of a faulty wire, you must assess the risk of work-related stress.
  • The Management Standards: The HSE (Health and Safety Executive) outlines six key areas that, if not managed, lead to poor health and reduced productivity: demands, control, support, relationships, role, and change.

2. When stress becomes a disability

While stress itself isn’t a disability, the effects of prolonged stress, such as clinical depression or anxiety disorders, often meet the criteria under the Equality Act 2010.

An employee is considered disabled if they have a physical or mental impairment that has a “substantial and long-term adverse effect” on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

What this means for employers:

  • If stress triggers a disability, you have a legal obligation to make reasonable adjustments. This might include:
    • Flexible working hours or “soft” start times.
    • Redistributing certain tasks to other team members.
    • Providing a quieter workspace or more frequent breaks.

3. Avoiding a personal injury claim

If an employer is aware (or ought to have been aware) that an employee is struggling and fails to act, they risk a claim for negligence. For a claim to succeed, the psychiatric injury must have been “reasonably foreseeable.”

The Red Flag Rule: If an employee tells you they’re struggling, or if their performance suddenly dips alongside signs of burnout, the clock starts ticking. Ignorance is rarely a valid legal defence once the signs are visible.

4. Practical steps for Stress Awareness Week

To stay on the right side of the law (and keep your team happy), consider these three actions:

ActionPurpose
Wellness Action Plans (WAPs)A proactive tool for employees to share what helps them stay well.
Training for ManagersEnsuring supervisors can spot signs of burnout before it becomes a grievance.
Open CommunicationReducing the stigma so employees feel safe raising issues early.

Work-related stress is often a symptom of systemic issues rather than individual weakness. By treating mental health with the same rigour as physical safety, UK businesses can avoid costly employment tribunals and, more importantly, foster a culture where people actually want to work. This year’s campaign, led by the Stress Management Society, focuses on the theme #BeTheChange, encouraging small, consistent, and positive actions. We think that’s a great place to start.

CONTACT US

We’re here to help with any questions or concerns you may have. Whether you need expert advice or would like an initial conversation about our services, pricing, or the options available, please don’t hesitate to get in touch. At Refreshing Law, what sets us apart from other law firms is that you’ll get to speak to an experienced employment lawyer right from the very first call.

02920 599 993

07737 055 584

lreynolds@refreshinglawltd.co.uk

GET IN TOUCH

Lousha Reynolds
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Employment Rights Act 2025

Planning ahead for the Employment Rights Bill

View of the British Houses of Parliament from the river Thames, where the Employment Rights Bill is being debated

In this blog I wanted to pick an area which will affect all employers when the new Act that is going through Parliament comes into force.

Sickness absence is a perennial issue that all employers have to manage.

From, likely April 2026, employees will receive Statutory Sick Pay from the very first day they are off work. At the time of writing this they would have to wait three ‘waiting days’ and not get paid until day four. For employers paying statutory sick pay only or perhaps small sums of company sick pay of a few days before employees revert to statutory sick pay, these ‘waiting days’ have acted as a deterrent to misusing sick leave, as the genuinely ill are not paid for short-term absences. This has deterred the odd day for ‘flu’ or a stomach upset. The Employment Rights Bill eliminates the three-day waiting period, removing the deterrent.

The Employment Rights Bill also removes the lower earnings threshold. This means everyone, no matter what hours they work – will now qualify for Statutory Sick Pay if they are sick. This captures more casual and part-time workers who historically may not have earnt enough to qualify. SSP will be calculated at 80% of their normal weekly earnings, subject to a cap of £118.75 which is the current rate of SSP for a week, and which increases each year, so is likely to be a few pounds greater by the time this change comes into force.

The combined effect of these two measures is more people qualifying for sick pay more often. Not only does that have a cost implication but it means you will need to review the measures you take to review absence and manage it.

Time to dust down your sickness absence policies, trigger points and monitoring of absence patterns. Often these are tools we have in our kit bag but aren’t using properly. A time-honoured method that yields the best results for managing absence is the return to work interview, yet often managers haven’t been trained how to do them with confidence.

Let us know if we can help you overhaul what methods you are using to manage sickness by contacting Anna at adenton@refreshinglawltd.co.uk.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Disability Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Health Conditions Mental Health Reasonable Adjustments Return to Work Sick Pay

Changes and guidance on fit notes for employers and line managers

View of the City of London at sunset

The government has just published changes to its fit note guidance for employers and line managers. It even included a handy checklist so that employers can avoid painfully drudging through the lengthy (4,462-word) document. The checklist includes the necessary steps and information that employers should have at their disposal when an employee has been issued a fit note.

Firstly though, what is a fit note? It’s a note from a certified healthcare professional who has determined after consultation with an employee, whether or not they ‘may be fit for work’ or are ‘not fit for work’. A fit note allows employers to discuss with their employees any health conditions that may prevent them from undertaking their work as usual. It also gives employers the chance to have an interactive discussion with their employees to establish tailored measures suited to both parties going forward.

The changes to this guidance as of 2022 state that where these fit notes had previously been required to have a signature of ink, they are now moving forward (as we all are) to accepting just the name and profession of the issuer. This enables the fit notes to be received and sent digitally. The DWP also expanded their accepted list of healthcare professionals who can certify the notes to include nurses, occupational therapists, pharmacists, and physiotherapists. It should be noted that although digital notes are embedded in primary care settings (GP), they are not yet in secondary care settings (hospitals), and so a pre-printed note may still be used by employees recently discharged from hospital.

There are a number of general rules that surround fit notes, so I’ll just outline the important ones to familiarise yourself.

In the first 7 days of sickness, employees can self-certify. If your organisation requires medical evidence within this time, any costs incurred by the employee for accessing a healthcare professional will be yours to cover eg:- where there has been a pattern of absence say on a Monday and Friday and you tell the employee that any further absence on these days will require a fit note.

The length of a fit note can cover a maximum of 3 months at a time during the first 6 months of sickness. Any specific time decided will be determined by the clinical judgement of the healthcare professional.

Private (non-NHS) healthcare professionals can produce reports like a fit note which can be considered. Private medical certificates or the Allied Healthcare Professionals Work Report can be accepted with no further need to obtain a further note.

Fit notes can come in a variety of ways, whether that be computer-generated and printed out, or sent digitally to your employee. Digital fit notes will include a barcode so that they can be scanned by employers and added to sickness records.

Now onto the fitness for work assessment and what that means for employers. The healthcare professional will state whether the employee is fit for work or not, and the length of time that any adaptions are required/the amount of time the employee is unable to work for. If they ‘may be fit to work’, the healthcare professional will give general recommendations on adjustments to be made for the employee to work safely or return to work entirely. These recommendations are not binding and if the recommendations cannot be implemented given the nature of work, the fit note can then be used as evidence for sick procedures.

General adaptions you may choose to explore as an employer include:

  • Phased return to work

  • Altered hours

  • Amended duties

  • Workplace adaptions

While at first glance these fit notes may appear to be potentially obstructive, by supporting your employee to stay or return to work you may actually avoid absence costs and minimise disruption for your organisation. Having an open discussion with your employee about adjustments will serve to create a more trusting work relationship that can only benefit both parties!

Martha Regan
Refreshing Law

 

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Duty of Care Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 HR Mental Health Pay Sick Pay Stress

Are you entitled to withhold SSP?

View of the City of London at sunset

You’ve probably noticed wording in your sickness policy that makes it clear if employees don’t comply with your procedure, they risk the payment of Statutory Sick Pay (SSP).

It is not open to an employer to withhold SSP where the employee provides medical evidence from their GP late. For example, you may require the certificate to be given to you on day 8 of absence, and the employee might not get around to giving you a certificate until day 10.

An employer is allowed to not pay SSP if the employee has failed to notify them of the absence, and there is no good reason to cause the delay in notification. For example, the employee is supposed to notify you of their absence on the first day of incapacity – if they didn’t notify you and essentially were absent without leave for the first few days and told you on day 8, then potentially Section 156(2)(a) Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 applies. So, for example, if the employee had gone AWOL effectively for the first week and then telephoned in, the employer is entitled to withhold for the duration of the delay.

Employers may introduce something more onerous as a matter of contract. For example, that the employee has to report in sick by a particular time on the first day of their absence and thereafter at regular intervals. That cannot override the statutory scheme when it comes to SSP but if more generous contractual sick pay is available, such as payment for the waiting days when SSP doesn’t apply or payment of full pay or something more than SSP, then the employer will be able to follow what they have said in their contract and withhold the extra payment if the employee has not complied with the rules.

Under SSP rules, HMRC in its www.gov.uk page ‘Statutory Sick Pay: employee fitness to work’, states that “if an employer decides to stop payment of SSP, they should explain their decision to the employee”. The employee will be entitled to a written statement from the employer and can seek a formal decision on their entitlement from HMRC Statutory Disputes Payment team. You might like to refer to the ‘Stop Payment of SSP Section’ of that Guidance. There is an example letter to notify the employee that you will not be paying them.

There will be occasions where the employer has real reasons to believe that the person may not have been unfit for work. For example, they may have requested annual leave and that request has been rejected, so the individual then phones in sick. Clearly the employer would have to do as much investigation as they possibly could around the circumstances. For example, if the individual provides a doctors fit note, HMRC advises that that should be accepted as conclusive proof of incapacity for SSP purposes, even if there is very strong evidence to the contrary. The employer might need to get their own medical advice or to ask HMRC to arrange for the employee to be examined by the medical services team. Clearly that only works in the case of a health condition that is likely to be ongoing.

It might be possible to ask, for example, a GP who has provided a backdated sick note when their consultation with the individual was and providing evidence timing that the employee has been covering up them being perfectly well on the days in question. Evidence as to their activity from social media may also be relevant, eg. photographs of the employee swanning around Spain when the employee told the employer they were in bed and that they were so unwell that they couldn’t get up.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

 

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Disability Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Equality Act 2010 Health Conditions Mental Health Return to Work Sick Pay

Revised — Fit notes

View of the City of London at sunset

You may be aware that the categories of people who are able to sign a Fit Note for the purposes of Statutory Sick Pay and other Social Security claims has been broadened with effect from 1 July 2022, so that pharmacists, physiotherapists, registered nurses and occupational therapists are now all able to sign Statements of Fitness for Work.

The old rules that such paperwork needed to be ‘wet’ signed by the GP have also been removed so it is now possible for the electronic generation of this paperwork in order to improve the way in which medical professionals are able to issue such documents. The Fit Note is still required to be signed and include the name of the healthcare professional who authorised it to be legally valid so a version that is blank isn’t genuine.

The Department for Work and Pensions has issued guidance for healthcare professionals which is called “Getting the most out of your Fit Note”.

It is interesting reading, in particular the instructions to medics to focus on fitness for work in general rather than fitness to attend a particular occupation, which suggests that it ought to be harder for somebody to achieve a state where they are unable to work at all, compared to being unable to perform aspects of their job.

The case studies are interesting as well. Particularly the fifth one called “relationship issues at work”. It gives the example of a patient complaining that she doesn’t get on with her manager, is feeling very stressed and wants to be signed off work. The medic determines in the consultation that although the situation is upsetting for the individual, they do not have a mental health condition and that they are fit for work. The medic then explains to the individual that they can see that she is being affected by work but is not in a situation where she should be issued with a Fit Note. The patient reacts badly and tells the medic that their manager has been really horrible to her and that she is finding it difficult to cope. The medic is directed to say that they appreciate that that may well be the case but to explain that the situation is not making the patient ill. If they were ill then they would be issued with a Fit Note and the medic would be acting with their health interests in mind. Instead, the medic is encouraged to explain that this is not a medical problem but a management issue and that going off on the sick will not resolve the problem or help her to find another job if that is what she decides to do. If that conversation happened, I think all employers would be relieved.

The medic is then encouraged to discuss with the individual whether they can talk to somebody at work to help resolve their problems such as speaking to HR, a Trade Union representative or speaking to ACAS. In the case study, the patient decides to approach another colleague for advice, to check the internet and to look at ACAS materials on managing conflicts at work.

Using that example, the situations we come across in HR where this is some kind of conflict or dispute in work, should not by this analysis result in somebody being signed off from work. It will be really interesting to see to what extent the medics toughen up their approach, as we all know that the stereotype is that Drs will provide a Fit Note “on demand”.

In the question and answer section of the document, it’s interesting to see that there is a question relating to “what if my patient fears job loss, stigma or discrimination if I reveal a health condition (or its effect on their work functioning) on their Fit Note?”. The answer is as follows: “if you feel that revealing a particular diagnosis or a limitation would harm your patient’s wellbeing, compromise their position with their employer, you can enter a less precise diagnosis on the Fit Note”. We have all come across examples where a Fit Note has said something like “unwell” or “stress” rather than an actual medical condition – this is why it is always worth referring somebody to occupational health to get the full picture. It reminds us that this scenario may be behind what a medic has written and that all may not be what it seems from the face of the paperwork: further exploration is necessary.

It is interesting to note that medics are encouraged to only issue bereavement related Fit Notes if somebody is genuinely so distressed by what happened to them that they are unfit for work – where they are not actually medically unwell then they should be having compassionate leave with their employer not time off sick. Again it will be interesting to see how many medics follow this guidance.

There is also further guidance for employers and line managers: Fit note: guidance for employers and line managers. Amongst other things, this repeats the position that has been the case for some while now but which I find employers are often confused by, in relation to return to work before the end of a Fit Note. The employee can come back to work at any time, even if this is before their Fit Note expires and they do not need to go back to their healthcare professional first. If somebody is coming back and you believe it is too soon or harmful in some way, then you would need to refer to occupational health for an assessment and further guidance. Where a healthcare professional assesses somebody is fit for work, they will not be issued with a Fit Note (there are some very narrow occupations where certification has to be given).

Something else that strike me about this new guidance is the emphasis that people do not need to be 100% fit to return to work because they may well be returning to work with adjustments and need to do alternative duties. That would probably surprise employees.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones COVID-19 Disability Duty of Care Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Equality Act 2010 Health and Safety Health Conditions Sick Pay

Long COVID was a disability

Royal Courts of Justice, London

The first Employment Tribunal case to determine that an employee with long COVID was disabled within the meaning of Section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 has taken place. The employee was a caretaker and he tested positive for COVID-19 in November 2020. Initially, he was experiencing mild symptoms. After isolating, he developed severe headaches and fatigue that were so severe that after simple acts like having a shower or getting dressed, he had to lie down and recover. He struggled to stand for long periods. He couldn’t undertake household activities like cooking, ironing or shopping. He experienced joint pain, loss of appetite, a reduced ability to concentrate and difficulty sleeping. This all led to him feeling unable to socialise. His symptoms were unpredictable: he would experience an improvement, only to suffer from fatigue and exhaustion again.

In January 2022, so after a few months, his health began to improve but the sleep disruption and fatigue continued to affect his day to day activities. His notes referred to long COVID Post Viral Fatigue Syndrome. The employer obtained occupational health reports which both indicated that he was fit to return to work with a view that the disability provisions of the Equality Act were unlikely to apply. However, due to his fatigue levels and the fact that he didn’t return to work, in August 2021 because of ill-health, his employer dismissed him when he had been absent from work for 9 months.

The Tribunal has had to determine the preliminary issue of whether he was disabled at the relevant time. It has concluded that he was and that he wasn’t exaggerating his symptoms and had a physical impairment (The Post-Viral Fatigue Syndrome caused by COVID-19). The Judge found it relevant that there was no incentive for him to remain off work when he had exhausted his sick pay. They found that his symptoms were consistent with the June 2021 TUC Report into long COVID and in particular, the fluctuating nature of those symptoms. The physical impairment had an adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day to day activities and they found that the effect was more than minor or trivial and that it was long term because it could well last for a period of 12 months when viewed from the dismissal date. In particular, they noted that the employer themselves was of the view that there was no date in sight where a return to work seemed likely.

Clearly this case does not mean that the employee will be successful in his claims of disability discrimination – at this stage he has just got over the first hurdle of proving that he had a disability. The Tribunal will have to go onto consider whether or not the dismissal was justified in all the circumstances. In doing that, they are particularly likely to take into account to what extent reasonable adjustments were explored and the process that was followed around the dismissal. This might include considering alternative employment.

Indeed, in another case, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has considered Section 15 of the Equality Act which you will recall is ‘discrimination arising from a disability’ in connection with dismissal following a period of absence. When Section 15 is raised, the Tribunal is going to be considering whether dismissal was a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’ of the employer. That case reminds us not to act prematurely in dismissing a disabled employee – the employer had grudgingly adopted a trial in an alternative location but failed to implement the trial reasonably or properly evaluate its success before their decision to dismiss. Where there was such an opportunity of work from a different location, a Judge is likely to find that that alternative was a less discriminatory alternative to dismissal that the employer should have taken. Clearly that wouldn’t have helped the employee with long COVID as he wasn’t able to work at all at the stage he was dismissed.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Absence Anna Denton-Jones Disability Employment Law Health Conditions Return to Work Sick Pay

Extension of who can provide an employee with a Fit Note

View of the City of London at sunset

You will all be familiar with GPs providing employees with certification that they are insufficiently well to attend work on day 8 of their absence, enabling the employer to then process, for example, statutory sick pay.

Some new regulations, snappily titled “The Social Security (Medical Evidence) and Statutory Sick Pay (Medical Evidence) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2022″ amend the position to expand the category of people who can sign Fit Notes for the purposes of Statutory Sick Pay and making Social Security claims.  From 1 July 2022, registered nurses, occupational therapists, pharmacists and physiotherapists will also be able to sign the Statements.  The idea behind this is to reduce workload on GPs and as you can envisage the GP practice may pass some routine work to the practice nurse, for example.

However, employees are still going to primarily be thinking of their GP when they are thinking about evidence for their employer of them not being fit to attend work.

You will need to update managers on this development so that they appreciate that any paperwork they see with the four new categories of signature are genuine and acceptable.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Age Discrimination Anna Denton-Jones Disability Discrimination Law Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996

Managing an exit for a worker with dementia

View of the City of London at sunset

A recent case involving ASDA highlights the challenges for employers when faced with an older worker beginning to exhibit the first signs of dementia. This particular case involved an employee who was 73 years old. She had worked for 20 years in a particular store. Her family had spotted the first symptoms of dementia 2 years before she was diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment but Asda did not know of this. Colleagues had become concerned that at times the employee appeared confused, would forget things and lose keys and the employer attempted to get the employee to occupational health. The employee refused that input and also refused to allow her employer to liaise with her family. During her Tribunal case it was alleged that a manager suggested retirement.

The employee then shielded due to her age during the first lockdown. It was during this time that she was diagnosed with mild mixed dementia. At the Tribunal, there were further allegations that during this period a manager twice asked the employee whether she wanted to retire, although the manager denied this.

The employee attended a return to work meeting with her son and he raised her being pressured to retire, asking the employer to ensure his mother would not be bullied or harassed. When the employee came back to work, she was observed to take longer to work stock, got flustered and confused about how she was going to get home. She was unable to find her keys and her bus pass in her bag, which led to a deputy store manager rummaging in her bag for them, which the employee later reported to her family as having upset her. The next day, management tried to have a discussion with her about what had happened and the employee became upset and aggressive, saying she didn’t need help and if she did she would ask for it. The employer tried to get her to occupational health and the employee gave the impression that she might have resigned before walking out and going off on the sick.

A grievance was raised but not upheld and a recommendation was that the employee attend occupational health.

The employee resigned claiming age and disability discrimination. Asda offered her the opportunity to reconsider but she didn’t take it.

The Tribunal found that the employee was constructively dismissed and the conduct amounted to age and disability related harassment, direct age discrimination and discrimination arising from a disability that breached the implied term of trust and confidence. The Tribunal understood that the suggestions of retirement on multiple occasions may have been said in a well-meaning way but were age related harassment. This clearly made the employee feel that she was being pushed out and was unwanted.

The rummaging in her bag was found to have violated her dignity – this was an act of disability related harassment because it was brought about by the memory impairment.

You shouldn’t discount this case as unusual because of the age of the employee – more and more older workers are present in the workforce these days and in any event, memory impairment can be diagnosed early on so assumptions about age and dementia cannot be made.

Whilst it can be very tempting for managers to try and manage problems with an employee who is older by mentioning retirement, they need to be trained to steer clear of retirement as a subject – you wouldn’t make such a comment to a 35 year old employee, so you shouldn’t make such a comment to an older worker as it just opens up the door to them claiming this kind of discrimination. That doesn’t mean a manager can’t discuss career plans. Conversations would need to happen across the board irrespective of the employee’s age though.

Instead, if an employee is beginning to exhibit signs of dementia or other cognitive impairment, the case should be dealt with as you would for any employee of any age. Asda had clearly tried to do the right thing in terms of getting the employee to occupational health but we don’t have enough detail about the lengths that they had gone to in that regard. It may be that they had steered away from explaining to the employee that their refusal to attend occupational health placed Asda in a difficult position of having to make decisions and judgements based on the only information that they had. It might have been that the employee was struggling to perform certain tasks. It was here that the focus should have been – what are the tasks the person is struggling with? What evidence is there that they are struggling?

With regards to the incident of searching the handbag, again the employee concerned was probably trying to be helpful but you need to operate on the basis that any searching of personal belonging or lockers needs to be done with consent and in accordance with any search policy that is in place. Any search would need to be justified and it is here that Asda probably struggled. The manager could have offered to assist and if the employee refused to take it up then to respect that.

Too often we observe that in having to deal with situations in a business-like manner probably while juggling a million and one other things causes line managers forget to add the “human” aspect into communications. The best way I deal with this is to write what I want to write about something, make sure my key points are covered and then go back and add in a language of care and concern and support and wanting to help the person but remember any judge is going to be looking at all of those things, judging whether or not you have done enough. I suspect the communications in this case were devoid of that human touch.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Duty of Care Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Equality Act 2010 Gender Inclusivity Health Conditions Menopause Sick Pay

Developments in the law relating to menopause

Royal Courts of Justice, London

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has only ever heard two cases in this space. Most recently they dealt with the second case that’s come before them where essentially they told the lower Tribunal off for failing to recognise the employee’s disability and potential sex discrimination claims. The case involved Leicester City Council and a social worker who was claiming constructive unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and sex discrimination. Her claim centred around the Council’s treatment of her in relation to her menopausal symptoms.

In her claim she described suffering from physical, mental and psychological effects of the menopause for a 2 year period. This included insomnia – causing fatigue and tiredness, light-headedness, confusion, stress, depression, anxiety, palpitations, memory loss, migraines and hot flushes. These had a negative impact on her life to the extent that she struggled physically and mentally to cope, had been to her GP who prescribed hormone replacement therapy and was under the care of a consultant at a specialist menopause clinic.

The employer had referred her to Occupational Health but were unable to meet the request that she be reviewed by a female doctor. The employee felt embarrassed and uncomfortable discussing her symptoms and the difficulties she was experiencing in their presence and in particular she had had a work related warning for her absence levels and at appeal, four men were present to make the decision. She described how when she had advised a male manager that she was suffering from hot flushes in the office, he had said he also got hot in the office, dismissing this as a menopause symptom.

The legal issues in the claim were more about the Tribunal having not applied the right level of detail to the explanation of their findings. The case still illustrates a number of key points:

  • That the menopause and menopause related symptoms can meet the definition of disability under the Equality Act as regards a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long term adverse effect on somebody’s ability to carry out normal day to day activities.
  • The need for employers have their antenna looking to spot in performance cases or cases where they are managing absence levels, whether there may be an underlying issue such as the menopause and the need, where there is, to use normal processes, and ensure further advice is obtained rather than ploughing on regardless, dismissing the issue as ‘just sickness absence’.
  • When referring somebody to Occupational Health, it would be respectful, to abide with an employee’s wishes to enable them to see a female Dr if they want. A rule that they had to see whoever was available may be indirectly discriminatory and you would need to think carefully about whether you could justify such a requirement or whether it’s actually going to be seen as a separate act of harassment or victimisation if you fail to be flexible on this.
  • It’s important to train managers so that they are aware of the menopause and don’t belittle it or think it can’t affect some people. We have a one-hour training session that we are able to provide on this subject area, if you are interested.

Interestingly, the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health has, as part of its response to the Parliamentary Enquiry that is currently going on into the issue of menopause in the workplace, made a number of recommendations including that employers need to take a more holistic view and put the spotlight on effective management practices and practical support. The Parliamentary Enquiry which launched in July of this year will consider, for example, whether it would be necessary to elevate menopause as a stand-alone disability like cancer under the Equality Act so that it gets the recognition it lacks at the moment.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Communication Duty of Care Employment Law Health and Safety Health Conditions Mental Health Risk Assessment Stress

What to do when you’re worried about someone — Suicide awareness

View of the City of London at sunset

Friday, 10th September was Suicide Awareness Day. By coincidence I ended up having the same conversation twice with two different organisations. In both cases, the employer had an employee who was on long term sick and where a pattern of contact with the employer had been established but they felt that something had changed. The lack of contact they were now experiencing was out character from the employee. In one case the employee had shared that they were having negative thoughts and in the other the employer was just concerned.

In such a case where efforts to speak with the employee are not fruitful, if you have any concerns then I recommend you act on them rather than ignore them. Our intuition is there for a reason.

The first port of call might be the next of kin that the individual has left with you. You don’t need to get into discussing any details about the employee or their absence, their health or anything like that: you can just remind the next of kin that they have been appointed by the employee as the next of kin and that you are worried about the employee because there has been a change in behaviour — are they okay? This is likely to prompt the next of kin to say that they will check.

The second port of call might be the GP. If you have the employee’s GP details which you are likely to do from the fit notes that they will have been submitting, you could contact the practice explaining that you have concerns and this is likely to trigger the practice then checking up on the individual. The GP will not be able to discuss anything about the individual with you but they will note if you are saying there is out of character behaviour and the fact that you have bothered to take the time to call.

Clearly you might be barking up the wrong tree entirely but for the sake of a phone call or two, if you are in any doubt, it is better than regretting not having raised a concern if there is something to worry about.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law