ATOS rottweillers!!

[bandit650]

It is sad to see that so many staff in offices around the UK are suffering the same problems with ATOS staff who are clearly miss informed by their bosses that they no more than a consultant and GP and can make decisions on our health and well being over the phone,had i not had first hand experience of this with someone i work with i would have thought that it was only certain parts of the country this was happening in.
I have just been dealing with a case in our office, ATOS was just going for the end result that the DIM had asked for in fact he pushed all the paper work onto the final stage missed out stages 1-3,to end employment with Royal Mail if the staff member did'nt get it's backside into work,the staff member had been in an accident while on duty,they have bullied the person back with an interview with a view to terminating employment,the member of staff is back with a walking stick to aid walking and is doing some odd jobs around the cage.
This stupid decision was taken by ignoring the 1st report by an ATOS adviser who said unfit for work and by another ATOS adviser over-riding that report because it did not fit the DIM's ideals(as you all know our dim is a top heart,kidney.lung,cancer consultant)all this without ever gaining any qualifications,he's a worker of some magnitude,go to his grave with RM stamped on his backside and he was the best in the business he belongs in the slap yourself on the back for a job well done group.
So ladies and gents i feel for any of you that has had to put up with this kind of treatment so far i myself have had no dealings with these idiots only with my hubby and now with my very depressed friend but as a last thing to say what your doctor says is the best advice there is and that a sick tab is a legal document and should be respected as so,if you do have an accident while on the premises of Royal Mail while you have one of these you are not insured and you are defrauding the sick,i am sure though that your DIM's are lawyers as well!

[norbert]

this one is the complete opposite - the ATOS doctor wouldn't do RM's dirty work for them , RM got Evershed's solicitors to get the tribunal stopped and/or wriggle out of it . However it was taken to Appeal Court , and RM's case was thrown out by the Judge and common sense prevailed .

The thrust of his case was the DUM choosing to take no notice of ATOS and bloody minded stupidity backfiring on RM .

http://www.emplaw.co.uk/news/summaries/396879794677.htm

MALEY V ROYAL MAIL GROUP LTD EAT /0232/08 - It should come up on google and there's a Microsoft Word Appeal Court Transcript that can be downloaded .

[madelin4]

this one is the complete opposite - the ATOS doctor wouldn't do RM's dirty work for them , RM got Evershed's solicitors to get the tribunal stopped and/or wriggle out of it . However it was taken to Appeal Court , and RM's case was thrown out by the Judge and common sense prevailed .

The thrust of his case was the DUM choosing to take no notice of ATOS and bloody minded stupidity backfiring on RM .

http://www.emplaw.co.uk/news/summaries/396879794677.htm

MALEY V ROYAL MAIL GROUP LTD EAT /0232/08 - It should come up on google and there's a Microsoft Word Appeal Court Transcript that can be downloaded .

Is there a procedure this man should of followed to get a resonable adjustment set in place??

[norbert]

this one is the complete opposite - the ATOS doctor wouldn't do RM's dirty work for them , RM got Evershed's solicitors to get the tribunal stopped and/or wriggle out of it . However it was taken to Appeal Court , and RM's case was thrown out by the Judge and common sense prevailed .

The thrust of his case was the DUM choosing to take no notice of ATOS and bloody minded stupidity backfiring on RM .

http://www.emplaw.co.uk/news/summaries/396879794677.htm

MALEY V ROYAL MAIL GROUP LTD EAT /0232/08 - It should come up on google and there's a Microsoft Word Appeal Court Transcript that can be downloaded .

Is there a procedure this man should of followed to get a resonable adjustment set in place??

I think it's up to ATOS on the BRF whether reasonable adjustments are set in place . ATOS tend to pass the buck back to RM if someone is aggrieved that he/she doesn't have reasonable adjustments which means grievance forms which is " interesting " .

Allegedly , There was that guy at Macclesfield who did his round in a van as he was on light duties as he was on a diyalsis machine at night & waiting for an operation . Apparently he cut off as he said he was going to , but RM stitched him up denying everything , so he was suspended for wilful delay , it caused a strike and he was immediately reinstated . Bob Gibson for the CWU couldn't condone the UIA but he stated that RM had handled it badly .
That guy later allegedly had to take RM to tribunal and won as RM would not accept he was covered by the DDA acts

In the Maley case , a reasonable adjustment would have been to issue him with a cotton uniform for a start . ATOS did warn the DUM that a tribunal would find that RM would be seen as acting unreasonably re DDA acts , and recommended if RM/ the DIM were that desperate to get rid of him ; they should ill - health retire him

[madelin4]

Norbert, but do you not think that before R M think of ill health retire the man that they should be making the adjustments to help him stay in work? Mayb not but that is what i thought they should do. Is being on "Light Duties" enough to say that they have tried with a person???

[norbert]

Norbert, but do you not think that before R M think of ill health retire the man that they should be making the adjustments to help him stay in work? Mayb not but that is what i thought they should do. Is being on "Light Duties" enough to say that they have tried with a person???

To answer , I'm sure if that poor man was of ethnic origin , it would be "amazing" how quickly a cotton uniform that wouldn't give him a serious skin complaint would be have been found - plenty of brownie points to be earned from naive and gullible middle class people working for those non - elected quangos and plenty of professional complainers and trouble makers that could have given RM problems

As for RM putting someone on light duties and saying they had tried - it seems RM put a perverse interpretation on things and even if they actually comply with any employment law , they certainly don't go along with the spirit of the law . Let's just say RM operate at the very limit of Employment Law at the best of times .

I get the impression with the Macclesfield case , that they wanted to get rid of someone on light duties by firstly trying to stitch him up on Wilful Delay , Plan B would be to get him out of the door with RMAP , I can imagine there would be bad feeling after a walkout .
RM would spiel out all this " caring" b***ocks about giving him light duties

From what I can make out from the DUM's dismissing letter in the Maley case in that Word Document - it seemed if they were subtly bullying Mr Maley into believing it was all his own fault and HE didn't make enough effort to improve his sick record - usual story Prosecutor , Judge , Jury & Executioner - unfortunately for RM it didn't impress a real judge very much .