Removed From Duty

[Digger1975]

In our office we have one postie who is currently on a shared duty (Park and Loop), however due to an injury said postie is unable to use a lightweight (golf) trolley. However they are able to use a HCT. Our DOM is trying to remove the postie from their current duty to a HCT walk. By doing this another OPG will possibly be moved off their signed for duty and put on the shared duty. There is currently no revision/repack in the pipeline so is the DOM within their rights to do this or could the affected person stand their ground? Many thanks.

[rehabron]

In our office we have one postie who is currently on a shared duty (Park and Loop), however due to an injury said postie is unable to use a lightweight (golf) trolley. However they are able to use a HCT. Our DOM is trying to remove the postie from their current duty to a HCT walk. By doing this another OPG will possibly be moved off their signed for duty and put on the shared duty. There is currently no revision/repack in the pipeline so is the DOM within their rights to do this or could the affected person stand their ground? Many thanks.

1) not knowing the extent of the injury but surprised that the affected person is unable to use a lightweight ( golf) trolley yet can operate an HCT but has this undergone a workplace risk assessment?
2) By removing the affected person from their P&L duty to an HCT walk this could be the DOM idea of an adjusted duty for the injured postie without going through the correct procedure of an OH Assist referral and their recommendations and a rehabilitation plan set up.
3) The other postie who is being transferred to the shared duty to accommodate the injured postie is their a change to their start/finish times?
4) Why would the affected postie " stand their ground" if they are unfit to perform their part of the P&L duty they would be better on a sick absence and then the attendance procedure would be triggered with the intervention of OH Assist which is basically what the DOM is doing by shortcutting the system as in (2)
5) RM will use the 318 to their benefit which is covered by " as directed" so moving the postie from the HCT walk to the shared duty of the P&L would be covered unless as previously stated their is a difference in the start/finish times or inadequate training on the P&L operation.
6) This would not require a revision or a re-pick for this to materialise.

[Digger1975]

In our office we have one postie who is currently on a shared duty (Park and Loop), however due to an injury said postie is unable to use a lightweight (golf) trolley. However they are able to use a HCT. Our DOM is trying to remove the postie from their current duty to a HCT walk. By doing this another OPG will possibly be moved off their signed for duty and put on the shared duty. There is currently no revision/repack in the pipeline so is the DOM within their rights to do this or could the affected person stand their ground? Many thanks.

1) not knowing the extent of the injury but surprised that the affected person is unable to use a lightweight ( golf) trolley yet can operate an HCT but has this undergone a workplace risk assessment?
2) By removing the affected person from their P&L duty to an HCT walk this could be the DOM idea of an adjusted duty for the injured postie without going through the correct procedure of an OH Assist referral and their recommendations and a rehabilitation plan set up.
3) The other postie who is being transferred to the shared duty to accommodate the injured postie is their a change to their start/finish times?
4) Why would the affected postie " stand their ground" if they are unfit to perform their part of the P&L duty they would be better on a sick absence and then the attendance procedure would be triggered with the intervention of OH Assist which is basically what the DOM is doing by shortcutting the system as in (2)
5) RM will use the 318 to their benefit which is covered by " as directed" so moving the postie from the HCT walk to the shared duty of the P&L would be covered unless as previously stated their is a difference in the start/finish times or inadequate training on the P&L operation.
6) This would not require a revision or a re-pick for this to materialise.

Many thanks for your reply. I was not very clear in my original post so here I go again.

1) As far as I am aware a workplace assessment has taken place. Said postie is unable to pull a lightweight trolley but can push a fully loaded HCT!!
2) The injured postie has been using a HCT on their P&L duty for the best part of a year now!! So in reality the P&L has become a single van duty.
3) No change to their start/finish times however I refer to this postie as the affected one (as potentially they are being pushed off their signed for duty which they have been doing for 5 years plus) not the injured one.
4) Injured postie has been back at work for best part of year now using a HCT on the P&L round. DOM wants to make better use of the van by making it a proper shared van duty again. However why did they not do this straight away rather than wait this long?
5) Training!! What's that? Yes I am sure they will use the 318 though.
6) DOM has tried to do a revision/re-pick so they can then ringfence a HCT duty for the injured one. However as an office we kicked this idea into touch quite sharpish by saying we want all rounds tested.

[rehabron]

Your right the management have allowed the injured postie to work an HCt from a P&L operation for over a year and accepted this fact. To move the postie who has covered his signed duty for over 5 years on an HCT walk would be victimisation and he should stand his ground. On your original posting I thought the move was on a temporary basis until the injured postie made a full recovery but obviously now this is nit the case. Your argument would be as they have allowed this for over a year could be classed as custom and practice and therefore leave the status quo without interference to the affected postie. To start ring fencing a duty for an injured postie after a year on returning to work is able to cover the duty presently occupying without any recourse to his injury, capabilities or having an effect to his health then why change.

[rehabron]

The affected postie should lodge a 2nd stage grievance giving the details that was described in the posting. This will be copied in to the Employment Relations Team at Sheffield who will appoint a manager at a higher level of authority than the DOM to investigate the grievance.

[greengiant]

I thought you were allowed to push a light weight trolley? That's what I tend to do when I use them, as it stops them hitting your heels.