Help re sacking

[paulf0203]

Does anyone on here know of any colleagues being sacked for absenteeism despite suffering with diabetes which comes under the protection of the Equality Act 2010 and winning the appeal?if so please let me have details in a private message as we are looking for a precedent. Thanks in anticipation.

[NWpostie]

It should be pretty clear under the Equality Act that the Employer has to make reasonable adjustment for the disability and prove they have taken steps to assist the Employee in doing so, I strongly suspect the management as usual haven't done so.

It would be an easy victory for the Union at an Industrial Tribunal.

[motherhubbard]

It would be an easy victory for the Union at an Industrial Tribunal.

Type 1 or type 2?
How is the condition being managed?
I believe that type 2 being managed through exercise and diet is not covered by the equality Act.
Were all the absences directly related to the condition?

[IcanthelpthewayIam]

It would be an easy victory for the Union at an Industrial Tribunal.

Type 1 or type 2?
How is the condition being managed?
I believe that type 2 being managed through exercise and diet is not covered by the equality Act.
Were all the absences directly related to the condition?

any condition can be covered by the equalities act depending on how it affects your daily life, type 2 can easily be covered under the equalities act

[motherhubbard]

any condition can be covered by the equalities act depending on how it affects your daily life, type 2 can easily be covered under the equalities act

A condition that can be rectified by surgery isn't and can't be covered by the Equalities Act. Neither iirc is alcoholism or hay fever.
And yes type 2 can be covered under the Equalities Act, but isn't necessarily and isn't as straightforward as type 1.

Without knowing all the facts it isn't possible to say it will be an easy win at a tribunal. There are many factors and the decision may well be upheld.

[NWpostie]

Type 1 and 2 are both covered if uncontrolled the consequences can be devastating hence the need to make reasonable adjustments for both Types, if uncontrolled Type 2s can eventually go on Insulin injections if not given the opportunity to prevent it going that far.

Both conditions are affected by excess sugar on the blood stream which are caused differently in Type 1 there is no functioning pancreas to supply insulin, Type 2 the body cannot use Insulin effectively which unless controlled can cause the Pancreas to "burn out" from producing excess insulin.

Consequently both are covered, if a Royal Mail manager ignores these facts, he risk making himself legally liable for any fall outs from not recognising the need to take a Diabetic 's medical needs seriously.

[paulf0203]

It would be an easy victory for the Union at an Industrial Tribunal.

Type 1 or type 2?
How is the condition being managed?
I believe that type 2 being managed through exercise and diet is not covered by the equality Act.
Were all the absences directly related to the condition?

I'm not the rep just a mate so I will have to ask him today but I believe any physical or mental impairment is covered

[motherhubbard]

Type 1 and 2 are both covered .

Employment & Pensions E-Bulletin Article

There are two types of diabetes; type 1 which is insulin controlled and is usually found to satisify the definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010 and type 2, which can be controlled by diet or medication. This month the EAT has overturned an Tribunal's decision in the case of Metroline Travel Ltd v Stoute that an employee’s type 2 diabetes amounted to a disability under the Equality Act 2010. The EAT held that the condition, which was controlled by diet (i.e. by abstaining from sugary drinks), did not have a substantial adverse effect on the employee’s ability to carry out day-to-day activities.

Facts

The Claimant was employed by the Respondent as a bus driver from 24 February 1992 to 11 March 2013 when he was dismissed for gross misconduct.

Whilst the Claimant's claims for unfair dismissal, discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments were all dismissed and the EAT allowed the Respondent's appeal to be heard as it would affect other employees of the Respondent who also suffered from type 2 diabetes.

The issue in the appeal focused on the effect of the condition of type 2 Diabetes on The Claimant's normal day to day activities and whether the effects on the Claimant meant that his condition fell within the definition of disability i.e. that it had a substantial adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day to day activities.

During the proceedings it was noted that a diabetic diet involves trying to avoid foods with a significant sugar content including sweets, chocolates and fruit juices etc, and that someone suffering from type 2 diabetes who does not properly manage his blood sugar levels might be at risk of suffering a hypoglycaemic attack.

Tribunal decision

The guidance on the definition of disability by the Equality Commission states that the effects of any “treatment or correction” are to be disregarded when deciding if an impairment is likely to have a substantial adverse effect on a person’s ability to carry out normal day to day activities.

The Employment Tribunal therefore concluded that, disregarding the diet, the Claimant could well suffer hypoglycaemic attacks and accordingly should be regarded as having a disability.

EAT decision

The Judge hearing the case on appeal disagreed with the Tribunal and in doing so referred to his own personal experience of suffering from type 2 diabetes stating that this had no effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, other than to watch what he ate or drank. As such, in his view, “perfectly normal abstention from sugary drinks” could not be regarded as a medical treatment.

Comment

This decision seems perfectly sensible. It also follows that similar conditions, such as nut allergies and intolerance to lactose, will not amount to a disability. However, employers should be careful not to automatically assume that type 2 diabetes and/or similar conditions will never amount to disability. Each case will turn on its own facts. For example, can the coping strategy (i.e. following a specific diet) be reasonably expected and therefore not a medical treatment and also whether there still remains a substantial effect on the employee’s normal daily activities.

[motherhubbard]

It states that type 1 is USUALLY found to satisfy the definition of disability.
Each case will turn on its own facts.

[NWpostie]

The fact that the Judge has referred to his own Type 2 is slightly disingenuous as you have said each case turns on its own merit, I wonder if the Judge is trying to play down the effect it has on him so he can remain in post, Type 2 is individual, some cope admirably, others don't, what is clear Type 2 is progressive, 20% of Type 2 eventually go on Insulin. eyesight is also crucial and they have an annual eye test every year to detect and prevent Diabetic Retinopathy, I think that is crucial under the Equality Act, medical time off must be granted to attend an optician appointment, reasonable adjust for time to test blood glucose levels in a private room if they prefer and take action if necessary either to prevent Hypoglycaemia or Hyperglycaemia.

Source: I have two friends with Type 1 and Type 2 respectively, I looked it up and did a bit of research on this.

[motherhubbard]

Source: I have two friends with Type 1 and Type 2 respectively, I looked it up and did a bit of research on this.

If you had in fact done any meaningful research you would know that type 2 diabetes might be covered by the equality act and then again, might not.
Every case is different.
Your assertion that it is always covered is wrong.
Your earlier assertion that it would be an easy win for the union might be right but then again might be wrong.

Is it because you are a man that you have to see everything as black and white and ignore the 50 shades of grey?
Is this why there are so few female reps because they cannot put up with such narrow-minded pig-headedness?

[Newbie001]

Think the real issue here is that the stage warning process is being abused. It was only really supposed to be used to discourage the people that constantly taking the odd day off here and there. But people with genuine illness seem to be getting targeted and forced out. The union really need to nip this in the bud and soon.

[NWpostie]

Source: I have two friends with Type 1 and Type 2 respectively, I looked it up and did a bit of research on this.

If you had in fact done any meaningful research you would know that type 2 diabetes might be covered by the equality act and then again, might not.
Every case is different.
Your assertion that it is always covered is wrong.
Your earlier assertion that it would be an easy win for the union might be right but then again might be wrong.

Is it because you are a man that you have to see everything as black and white and ignore the 50 shades of grey?
Is this why there are so few female reps because they cannot put up with such narrow-minded pig-headedness?

Mmmm I thought we are fighting on the same side. I am glad I'm not a Rep, its a thankless task if I am confronted by the likes of you. I don't see what gender has to do with this ? some females can be just as pig headed as anyone else.

I do believe TYpe 2 should be covered by the Equality Act as the condition is for life and can get progressively worse, this group needs to be monitored by their GP and Opticians every year, they have to take regular blood checks, time off for appoinmets, this medical group would be vulnerable, if the managers see any grey areas to exploit regarding their condition for unfair stage warnings and ultimately sacked because they think they are not covered by the Equality Act when they SHOULD BE !

There must be no grey area with this condition !

[motherhubbard]

I do believe TYpe 2 should be covered by the Equality Act

Unfortunately the title of this thread is not - Who believes type 2 should be covered by the Equality Act?
What anyone "believes" isn't going to save the boy his job.

The reality is it might be covered, but it might not.
And we still don't even know if he is type 1 or type 2 anyway. And we don't know the reasons for his absences.
So without all the facts it is impossible to say whether he has a case against dismissal.

[NWpostie]

I do believe TYpe 2 should be covered by the Equality Act

Unfortunately the title of this thread is not - Who believes type 2 should be covered by the Equality Act?
What anyone "believes" isn't going to save the boy his job.

The reality is it might be covered, but it might not.
And we still don't even know if he is type 1 or type 2 anyway. And we don't know the reasons for his absences.
So without all the facts it is impossible to say whether he has a case against dismissal.

Easy to criticise form the cheap seats, at no point did you offer anything constructive in this debate, you're just being argumentative.

Diabetes is MENTIONED at the start by the OP. I very much doubt you know anyone who has diabetes or even done ANY research into it. therefore your comment regarding Diabetes is invalid, all you have done is criticise, I have friends with Diabetes and have done research on it, daily life can be affected by both types, its a constant in the background and you can never forget you have it, you have to work your life round it.

Until you have done any research into Diabetes and actually looked into it, none of your comment is of relevance to me.

Go here if you want to hear from the people who do have it. http://www.diabetes.co.uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;