I’m not sure that there is any evidence that would support.   My argument in favour would be determined by the reason for absence and the nature of the work done rather than a blanket timeframe.   I can see how it happens though, as I have had some spectacular requests for phased returns to work that really aren’t necessary, such as people in sedentary roles that have been off with very minor illnesses and no other risk factors.   In one organisation I worked in a culture had developed where a phased return was almost expected for everything, and this obviously results in organisations getting hacked off and cracking down.

 

If I had a conversation with HR and managers my arguments would be:

·         The need to consider each case on its own merit, taking into account the nature of the work and the reason for absence.

·         Whether or not the condition is likely to be covered under the Equality Act

·         The fact that that phased returns to work tend to facilitate early and sustained, safe and effective returns to work.

·         The fact that if the person were to be penalised for a high and prolonged absence following the company’s refusal to accept your recommendations may leave them in a sticky situation if the employee decided that they had been unfairly treated and sought legal redress (especially if the EA were to apply).

Just my thoughts.

 

H

 

 

 

Dear All,

 

I support an organisation who has a policy denying a phased return to work unless employee has been off work at least 4 months.

Can anyone point me to evidence that would support a change to a more enlightened policy?

 

Many Thanks

Andy

******************************** Please remove this footer before replying.

OCC-HEALTH ARCHIVES: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/occ-health.html

CONFERENCES AND STUDY DAYS: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/filearea.cgi?LMGT1=OCC-HEALTH